I am delighted that you are both recognizing your ignorance and seeking to mend it. That's something for me to admire and imitate, not for you to be sorry about.
Self-mutilation and self-harm are sins, and have always been considered so. So it isn't just transgenderism that falls under this, it's also suicide, cutting, getting privately drunk or high, gluttony, etc.
Lying to yourself is a sin, as is living according to a lie, and lying to others.
Rejecting a part of yourself, that is God's gift to you, is a sin.
The psychology of the situation goes to culpability, of course. I expect that there aren't many people who go in for serious and permanent self-harm and self-rejection that do not have some form of trauma, cultic brainwashing, or medical problems. But that is something that is to be met with the truth and pastoral care so they can learn to love themselves as Christ loves them. In a way, we want to help people to be culpable, because we want them to choose freely as well as correctly, which requires they make their choices with knowledge rather than blind groping. The children of God ought to be free.
As far as authoritative teaching is concerned, there hasn't been any ex cathedra magisterium on this, and I don't know of anything in the Church Councils that would apply. Most authoritative Church teaching comes in the form of Scripture and Tradition, reaffirmed in the ordinary teachings of bishops. What I said above is certainly to be found in all three of those, and direct statements on transgenderism are to be found in the statements of bishops (although you'll have to sort through some error among those).
Tbh, I'm not sure whether "transgenderism" includes those who have gender dysphoria without acting according it, or those who used to act according to it and don't anymore (but are still suffering from surgeries or the effects of wrong hormones). Those certainly aren't sins, because temptation isn't a sin, and the suffering that follows sin isn't a sin. But a lot of things that definitely are included in transgenderism are objectively sinful.
Gender dysphoria is like same-sex attraction, in that it is a set of persistent disordered emotions (and involuntary thoughts), which are a rejection of a core aspect of one's self. We all deal with disordered emotions and thoughts of many varieties (although they generally don't involve quite so much suffering). These are not sins. Acting and voluntarily thinking according to them is a sin, and it tends to make the emotions more persistent and powerful, and it deepens the wounds that might be causing the disordered emotions. (for LGBT, that's often, not always, sexual abuse or brainwashing, hence the increase in children identifying as the wrong sex). What we all ought to do with our disordered emotions and thoughts, is act according to the truth anyway. That is hard and it hurts, but it's not a sin and it doesn't damage us.
I doubt the USCCB will issue such a statement, given they couldn't agree on denying Holy Communion to politicians who openly support abortion through all 9 months. But there are individual bishops who offer guidance, if you sort through the mud.
Cardinal Sarah talked a little bit about it in his book "The Day is Now Far Spent".
Thank you, I've been working on the compassion part for some time. :) But for many cases it would be very hard not to.
I find the increase in people identifying as the wrong gender to be troubling as well. I think it is due to a combination of an increase in sexual abuse of children (went from 20% of the population to 25% between 2010 and 2020), a dramatic increase in the number of parents and teachers, books and media that promote false gender ideology (there's books for preschoolers in Barnes & Nobles), and a general unwillingness to tell the truth about it (because there could be nasty consequences). I think you hit the nail on the head with the need for guidance. The attacks on religious liberty might be a blessing, in that some formerly silent people, unwilling to violate their consciences, will become witnesses to the truth.
Has it occurred to anyone that someone with gender dysphoria and pursues the medical profession's process, along with an examination of conscience and faith, might come out of the process loving the Lord more?
If gender dysphoria suddenly shows up in a previously comfortable girl now approaching puberty, chances are it's the very common dismay of having her body changed without her consent, so to speak. There is a growing body of anecdotal evidence that parents who drop all social media, increase time spent within the family, and family based activities see their daughter become more comfortable with their birth sex after several months to a year.
I can work with that. Puberty is an incredibly confusing time. Adding a claim of gender dysphoria makes the situation a whole lot messier.
The rule of thumb for us lay people is that the condition is "insistent, persistent, and consistent," where the persistence should be well over a year, probably two. Gender Dysphoria should be considered after all other possibilities are exhaustively examined.
Certainly Church encouragement, support & even advice is needed for Catholic parents raising children affected by gender dysphoria in a time when parent rights are being challenged or taken away by state governments, including threats of having their children removed if the parent disagrees their child has dysphoria.
We've had a coca wine that was endorsed by a Pope, and a beef tea that was endorsed by a Pope, but have we had a men's antiperspirant that was endorsed by a Pope?
Seems to me like a lot of dancing around the questions in an attempt not to offend anyone, and mainly just restating general guidelines and canon laws. The answer to question 2 is the most concerning to me, even though I could envision some narrow circumstances where a transgender person could be a godparent. There could be a possible situation such as someone who had surgery and later regrets it and reverts back to identifying as their biological sex...but then they wouldn't really be identifying as transgender, would they? I suspect the DDF was referring to people who identify as "transgender" and all that entails, so I'm not sure this kind of situation is what they had in mind. This is not even taking into account the requirement that two godparents have to be of the opposite sex, which is a whole other can of worms when you have a godparent who "identifies" as the opposite sex.
Overall the vagueness and imprecision in these answers is going to lead some priests to take advantage of the apparent permission of transgender people to fill these roles "under certain conditions" and it will be interpreted very liberally. And then on the other side there will be priests who will turn down some transgender person's request to be a sponsor and be vilified for a lack of "mercy" and for "discriminating", or whatever.
I immediately felt compassion for the priests who have to apply this, especially for the priests who turn down a request and are compared to the liberal minded priest in another Diocese. It will make the altar boy/girl allowance seem like old old school.
Yep, it seems mostly like the DDF is pushing this off on priests to figure out for themselves because they can't bring themselves to provide clear yes/no answers, much like the previous dubia submitted by the Cardinals. And the priests who actually have to deal with these situations are the ones who are going to suffer for it - mostly the ones who try to remain faithful to Church teaching and turn down prospective sponsors. I can definitely see situations in the future (and some have happened in the past already) where someone gets denied and they go running off to the local media, or the bishop and he disciplines the priest, etc. It's going to be a mess.
There is not a requirement that there are 2 godparents, 1 is sufficient, and they can also be called a baptismal sponsor. If the sponsor is transgender, and lives in a state incongruent with their natal sex, then it would be necessary to call them a baptismal sponsor in order to avoid causing scandal.
“Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn to attack you“ Matthew 7:6. An often neglected pastoral principle of Jesus’ sermon on the mount for politically correct reasons. I believe this means discernment is necessary regarding to whom sacraments are given and their context of family life. Hard lines ought to be given for the sacraments especially those that require a culture and education for their growth, ie baptized children in family life. Specifically, that allowing baptism for the children of same sex attracted men and women denies the child proper Christian Education through family life. A transgender child or adult, is living a lie that manifests itself to the world that cannot be good Christian life conducive to fostering Marriage and Baptism.
One does not want "the sins of the fathers to be visited on the children". I hate the idea of children barred from Church sacraments because of what their sinful parents did to get them. But neither do I naively want to indulge wishful thinking at this time of the zeitgeist that SSA couples are coming to get their babies baptized, etc, for any reason other than making a political statement and to hammer in further a wedge into Catholic teaching on sexual morality. (You know, one reason I converted to Catholicism is I KNEW weird biological/sexual problems were going to be posed to Christianity and I trusted the Catholics over the Prots to give ancient teaching aligned answers somehow. O Dear Lord, Catholic Church please don't let me down!)
This smells exactly like Francis. He has been meeting with and giving green lights to "LGBTetc" activists for his entire pontificate. Just because he intersperses this with statements affirming orthodoxy does not mean he disagrees. Also, there are no circumstances in which Baptizing a person with gender dysphoria who has been surgically sterilized would not "cause scandal". There is nothing in the document to indicate that such a person would need to change in any way. This is merely a bone tossed to reassure Catholics that there is nothing unusual about this completely bizarre Dubia and response.
> Also, there are no circumstances in which Baptizing a person with gender dysphoria who has been surgically sterilized would not "cause scandal".
My understanding is that there are people who "transition" (attempt to physically become the other sex) and then "de-transition" (return to living like the rest of us to the extent possible. But some things cannot be undone; to pick the least invasive example: make a woman's voice deeper and it will always be deeper). I would hope that baptizing a person who has repented and turned around their life would not cause scandal, but of course it would at first glance, because a casual onlooker is not going to know the full history.
There are also people who do nothing surgical but choose to adopt the grooming, styling, and other standards secular society currently assigns to the other sex. Maybe odd but hardly the basis to deny someone baptism, particularly a baptism performed by a male cleric wearing lace and a cassock rather than pants.
There actually are circumstances where baptizing a person with gender dysphoria is a scandal (by which I mean the sin, and not just the upset ditherings of people with 2 sec. worth of knowledge).
When a person is baptized into the Faith, and professes the Faith, he also agrees to live according to the Faith. That is why people in RCIA must get any irregular marriages sorted out before they come into the Church. (Possible exceptions for living as brother and sister.) A lifestyle of adultery/fornication does not accord with the Faith. A person with gender dysphoria who recognizes this is disordered and has no intention of living according to the disorder can certainly get baptized. If being not quite right in the head were a barrier to baptism, no one could be baptized. But if the person fully intends to continue presenting and acting as the opposite sex, he is lacking in the agreement to live according to the Faith, and for a cleric to know this and baptize him anyway would cause scandal.
Amazing. If a layman doesn't want to wear pants but dresses up in lace and a skirt, he is denied baptism. But if a cleric wants to wear a cassock and lace, good for him.
If a woman takes vows and changes her name to a male Saint's good for her.
Intention matters. A cassock and a lacy alb are men's clothing, and clearly discernable as not a dress. A nun who takes the name "Joseph", is still addressed as "Sister". Neither is pretending to be the opposite sex. Both would take offense if you treated them as the opposite sex.
Odd how you wish to judge by the most superficial thing, rather than the heart.
What baptism means is not instinctive knowledge planted in the heart at birth. A person can believe that they very much want something because they don't know what it is and what it will require of them. To baptize someone who doesn't know what they're asking for or agreeing to isn't merciful, it's a violation of informed consent, and bears more resemblance to proselytizing than conversion. In extreme cases it can completely invalidate the Sacrament.
Their parents consent for them. But this IS why it is so important that there be a founded expectation that the parents will actually raise them Catholic.
A natural question arising from the DDF response to Question 1 (which I was surprised wasn't addressed in the response) is: if transgender-identifying individuals are to be baptized, what name are they baptized with? Is he or she to be baptized with the name given to them in accord with their actual sex, or with their post-transition name? Will Jimothy be baptized as Stacey? Will Barbie be baptized as Ken?
The name thing actually matters (especially since the person's name is explicitly stated as part of the formula), and I can imagine that baptizing a male individual ("Jimothy") with a socially-female name ("Stacey") would be a cause for scandal and thus impede the imposition of the sacrament.
people are baptized under the name they choose. it really would be a pretty clear dick move to require trans people to use names "socially" linked with their sex assigned at birth. if that causes a scandal for some people, then maybe those people need to stick their noses elsewhere.
I think you're smart enough to know what the point I'm making is, and you're missing it. Obviously one can "choose a name" in the sense that, for example, if I were to enter RCIA I could be baptized "Matt" or "Matthew." And a woman named "Thelma" could (in theory, only because there's no canon to explicitly preclude this) prefer to be baptized as "Louise" (although even then, that is an exceedingly uncommon and far more complicated situation than you make it out to be).
But if you honestly think that if a woman named "Lucy" attempts to transition into a man and wants to be baptized as "Ricky," that could never possibly create public scandal (considering the Church has a pretty clear and defined anthropological understanding that humans are a male-female binary determined by biological sex) and imply a tacit affirmation by the Church to something heterodox, then you are not to be taken seriously.
I once knew a set of twins who, at baptism, the priest accidentally swapped the names of the two little baby boys. The parents didn't just say "meh, the name thing doesn't really matter and anybody can choose anything," or "let's just do it again with the correct names," they actually went through the process of legally changing the names of their twin boys to match the baptismal reality. A middle schooler could understand that the name matters because baptism imparts a permanent indelible mark and bestows an identity that cannot be wipe away. Even taking on a religious name in vows doesn't change that identity. In Christ, you are and always will be Joseph.
And don't give me the cheap "well it's none of your business" crud; it is my business since, theologically, we are made one body in Christ, and practically, because what you choose to be named affects other people who interact with you or speak about you (don't people complain about "deadnaming"?)
I understood you perfectly well. as I said before, my view is that if it causes "scandal" to some, I am willing to let them be scandalized. I don't have any level of sympathy at all for your desire to micromanage the lives of trans people.
Joseph, your feelings and insistence for personal autonomy is standard op in the non-Catholic world, but to enter the Catholic Church requires surrendering the commonly held individualistic independence of US society. It's a serious thing to become Catholic. You promise obedience to the teachings of the Catholic Church. One is constantly asked through the years if you still believe in the virgin birth, the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, in life after death. Outside the Church, scandal is fun. It's a goal, even. Inside the Church, scandal is heartbreaking. One is disappointing Jesus and making it harder for others to live as Christ wants everyone to live. But there's nothing like the freedom I found in becoming Catholic. I hope you will look into it more. But it's really different!
lmao, what are you doing now, questioning my Catholic cred? I'm not any less Catholic than you because I take a different view of what should be expected of transgender Catholics. causing scandal is inherent to being a Christian- if you're not "sending the wrong message" to some, then you're not imitating Christ. and I do not object to the articles of the creed you mention, but there is a place in the Church for dissent on some topics.
Here's what makes this more complicated: names have historically traveled between the sexes. We've had guys named Mario and girls named Josephine for many centuries. You can actually honor and take patron saints who don't share your sex, and take their name. The fact that we now have this social innovation introduces new cases where the intent is wholly different from the historical use: whereas my grandmother may have named my mother Jean in honor of St John the Baptist, my daughter may be naming my granddaughter Jon as a denial of the truth of biological sex.
If we try to write a law to address the second case, how do we do so without either invalidating the historical practice or introducing some kind of mind-reading or at least a legalistic "orthodoxy pledge" (like having the parents sign a statement that they are not using this name as a denial of reality?)
I actually think leaving it up to the pastor's judgment is probably the least bad option here.
People give their little girl babies masculine names with some regularity, and what happens over time is that the perception of the name changes from "boy" to "neutral" to "girly" and eventually people don't use that name for little boy babies anymore. So I don't think we should panic too hard about baptismal names. God adopts sinners into His family on a pretty regular basis, and none of them fully understand how much He is going to ask of them (in spite of that Gospel reading about "hey don't try building a tower until you have budgeted for it, and don't fight a big army with a little one although we did kind of just read about that in Maccabees because that's not what I'm talking about" we do not actually calculate the cost, which is literally everything and I mean literally.) If someone recklessly has himself or herself baptized as a Catholic without actually holding all of the truths of the Catholic faith, he or she is kind of asking for it (I don't know what will happen - potentially, sainthood, which is the kind of adventure that only a fool would sign up for, such as young St Teresa of Avila toddling off to ask someone to martyr her), and if the instructor did his/her job then it's not the instructor's fault, but if the instructor also does not really hold as true everything that is true, then the instructor should hold onto his/her hat also, because God is not going to build the Four-Story Mistake (shoutout to Enright fans, if any) if He can get away with doing a lot more.
The problem really isn't about the names so much as the intention.
Besides the ambiguity in boy vs. girl names, there are a lot of nuns who take the names of male Saints when they make their vows. They are making a statement about their identity, but NOT about their gender identity.
Personally, I expect that a transgender person who truly rejected transgenderism, would not want to keep a name that they had assumed for the purposes of identifying as the wrong gender. Whether they choose to return to their original name or to pick a new name (there was a custom in the early Church for people with pagan names to choose a new name at baptism), totally up to them. I can also imagine a situation in which a person might legitimately want to keep their changed name, but I don't think that will be typical, and would probably bear some looking into by their priest/catechist - more likely that the person hasn't received sufficient formation to convert (regardless of whether that is anyone's fault) than that they have a correct understanding and intentions in that choice. This is less about the name, and more about helping a person who needs it. Think generosity, not the mere meeting of obligations.
As far as changing their names *legally* is concerned, that is a PROCESS, and shouldn't cause a delay in baptism.
People who ignorantly do not agree with all of the truths of the Catholic faith get baptized all the time. It hurts them to believe a lie, sometimes gravely, but unless their ignorance is deliberate or due to negligence, it's not a sin. People who knowingly reject Church teaching and get baptized have a much bigger problem: they are in mortal sin for the heresy and they have committed sacrilege as well (against Baptism, and Confirmation, and the Eucharist, all within minutes of each other). They do not receive the graces of being within the Church, because they are spiritually dead. Of course, sin can be followed with repentance and ultimately holiness. But there's very good reason to do that before baptism, rather than someday maybe.
I was a evangelical Christian til I was 45 when I converted (long story of course). I've now been Catholic over 2 decades. I find there are STILL nooks and corners that come to light that I must tussle over to see if they can be converted at last. I love the Church because people have been so patient with my residual protestantism. It's like I'm a tree. All that protestant wood is now overlaid with a nearly equal amount of Catholic wood, and it's wonderful.
As a cradle Catholic, I expect there will always be nooks and corners, and occasionally whole rooms that somehow got overlooked, that need converting. "Tussle" is a great word for it. The cure is sometimes worse than the disease... but being cured is always far better.
The Dubia does not spell out the very reasonable context that you provide. It is silent on the state of the hypothetical person requesting Baptism. Thus we will all fill in that blank with our own preconceptions, rather than the unbroken teaching of the Church that you spell out. You correct the error in the Dubia but why didn’t the Dubia provide it?
If you asked this DDF if it is permissible to kill a person, they would respond with "yes, under certain circumstances. However, it is not a right to kill a person, so pastoral discernment should be excercised to ensure no moral confusion or scandal is caused by each individual case of killing people."
I find the document, while needing to be teased out further to offer practical guidance on certain aspects (namely what would give a priest hope that a child would be raised in the Catholic faith), to be instructive to those who would be inclined to blindly allow sacramental access to anyone identifying as LGBT as well as those who would be inclined to blindly reject sacramental access indiscriminately. For the question of baptism, it is worth remembering that it is the sacrament of salvation. When I read some commentary from fellow Catholics, it seems like some of us are demanding that a person who identifies as LGBT and has navigated that in varying ways up until presenting for baptism, is expected to have made decisions in line with church teaching while in a state of original sin and apart from receiving the theological virtues and sanctifying grace. It’s as if we need to be demonstrating by our lives the fruits of the sacrament of Baptism to earn it, rather than Baptism being the catalyst for deeper conversion and virtue. I am grateful that Christ and his Church did not withhold Baptism from me and many others who approached it while we were still sinners, not after we were free from sin. It teaches a fundamental reality of our faith about the salvific nature of grace. I definitely submit to the wisdom of the church that recognizes that sacramental access is not something you give just because someone wants it, and yet as I read the comments I am struck by how little nuance is imagined for what the Holy Spirit is doing when he pursues those of us who experience gender distress or same-sex sexuality. Perhaps God desires to invite the souls of people some of us can’t imagine being and/or becoming virtuous people to enter more fully into communion with Him and His Church. And perhaps if we are horrified by that, it’s a place for greater conversion in our own hearts. I’ve been told that I ought to pray for the desire to want the person I feel most attacked by to be in heaven with me one day. I would commend that prayer to those of us who want to, on principle, deny access to sacramental grace to entire groups of people. I would also encourage us to get to know the very people that would and are presenting to Catholic Churches who have transitioned previously. I have been struck by the work God is doing in them to draw them deeper into communion with him. The humility and willingness to submit to the authority of Christ that they demonstrate is something we could all learn from. Not every person who experiences same sex attraction and/or gender discordance is the same. Many would be a gift to the Church as Christ draws them into deeper relationship with him and transforms them. We all suffer when we decide Christ only saves those like us.
Oh boy, so much to talk about here. Your assumption (and it is a vast assumption on your part) that everyone who has a problem with the DDF's responses is unkind and lacking in Christian charity is at best a rather shallow assessment of everyone's understanding and motivation for what they say. Saying that everyone who is raising concerns about what has been promulgated (or not, in this case) thinks that "Christ only saves those like us" indicates to me that you may not really understand what conversion is and what it truly entails (a rather important part of accepting Baptism and giving Christian witness).
To put it as simply as possible, as the late Francis Cardinal George has been quoted (by Bishop Robert Barron), "Everyone is welcome to come to Jesus Christ. Everyone. But we must come to Him on His terms, not our own." You simply cannot come to Christ and tell Him that you are going continue in your old life while at the same time taking on a new life in Christ (as our baptismal promises make clear that we are doing). That would be trying to love two masters. And we all know what Jesus said about THAT.
These choices to live according to the flesh cannot continue if you want to walk His path. And for us as Christians to pretend that you can (which is what we do if we do not make all possible efforts to see that those who come into the fold though Baptism do so with the clear understanding of what it means AND the clear and demonstrative desire to follow those commandments, or to be educated and guided in the faith by the godparents) is where the scandal occurs. It is a scandal because it is a lie. It is a lie because it suggests that you do not need conversion, that you are good enough as you are right now and no course correction or change in your life is necessary (of course, if that is true, then why do you need Baptism?). It is contrary to what Jesus Himself made clear in the Gospels. I will always believe that, unless you can show me otherwise.
This is where so many of us are having issue with the responses to the dubia, because it leaves way too much open to "interpretation" (as is typical of this pontificate). It SEEMS to suggest that there is no clear objective moral imperative to convert from the old life anymore. Just as long as the person is a "good person" and "loves Jesus" - whatever that might mean to them or the priest talking to that person - is all that is required. Not true. Dying to yourself and the ways of the flesh, the world, and the Devil and putting on the new self that is dedicated to the way of God is non-negotiable. And that implies behaving according to the commandments of the Father (ALL of them). They are non-negotiable as well.
While you are correct that perfection is NOT required for baptism, no one here is saying that it is. What we are saying is that to be baptized makes a clear statement that you understand that you are a sinner in need of conversion and you fully intend to walk away from the old sinful life as best you can each and every moment that you draw breath. As St. Catherine of Genoa said, "God does not demand perfection, but He does demand that we attempt to attain it." I would add the word "constantly" to that quote. The DDF's responses, however, indicate (at least in my reading) that maybe that's not the case anymore. That we baptize and then "hope" the person will work on it at some point in their life, without so much as a basic discussion with said person about what they may be doing is wrong. Or at least, it opens the door to this. So much for protecting the Deposit of Faith.
I had an anguished exchange with a recently baptized adult convert today. As an OCIA catechist who walked alongside her for three long years, I am so sad at this latest pronouncement. My friend had a very difficult and time-consuming annulment process and undertook that process seriously and trusting that the Church wanted her to enter into communion in a state of readiness, submission, and obedience. The reporting on this newest "clarification" by the DDF obviously causes distrust and wariness.
It's wearying dealing with ambiguity like this. Shame on those who are supposed to communicate moral and theological truth to us and who refuse to be clear.
Dealing with the Church hierarchy's ambiguity and scandal is quite distressing and unavoidably common. Do you have any thoughts on whether that is something that should be addressed in the course of preparation for entering the Church or not?
I don’t know. Really. I remember that when I came into the church twenty years ago, I was told by a catechist that things are not as they should be. But she left it vague. The ambiguity and confused messaging is a reality, of course, but I don’t know if discussing it at the outset would help or if it would discourage people enough to postpone or turn away from seeking entrance into the Church.
I'm troubled about comments below saying make baptism easy. I mean, we're talking about Jesus torture death for our salvation. Does His pain count so little? Shouldn't there be a difference how baptism is perceived by an infant, a teen, an adult coming to receive it?
Theologians have pretty well documented that the prior teaching had underlying assumptions that lgbt couples were not acting in accord with how they were made; rather, it was a rebellious act or choice against nature. So in light of more well-founded psychology this step seems reasonable.
So...if you're in Germany and nothing apparently causes scandal then the DDF would let anything go. But in a more orthodox area then it's not allowed? I think baptism really really has to lean towards letting people get baptized; we should be as free as possible with it. Really put the "burden" on the person coming to get baptized. for other sacraments the church can be more selective.
Very interesting thought on the culture in which a baptism is performed.
I also have general operating principle of (generally speaking) being very liberal with admission to baptism. Perhaps my earlier comments on this article muddled that. It's the "name" aspect that I think needs to be parced out further in prudential judgement. But yes, more people baptized, please!
In reality, how many trans ppl are actually seeking the circumstances listed in this Dubia? This seems like a much more theoretical exercise than one seeking to solve a problem. I’m sure it occurs, but not a pressing issue.
But ask a question about whether remarried divorcees can receive communion... don’t expect an answer.
I thought an answer had been implied by Pope Francis when it came to light he answered the 4 dubia from Cardinal Sarah(?) et al living and dead from 2014? It read like divorced were pretty much "lumped in" with gays, meaning both were now under the same new vaguely suggested procedures.
As a former RCIA Director, I would read these responses in line with the Code of Canon law and the norms laid out in The Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults. In particular if you follow the RCIA guidelines you will have a clear way to make pastoral judgements. I think Q1 has to be left open because at minimum we have to allow for detransitioners who have undergone permanent hormonal and surgical changes to enter the Church.
I am delighted that you are both recognizing your ignorance and seeking to mend it. That's something for me to admire and imitate, not for you to be sorry about.
Self-mutilation and self-harm are sins, and have always been considered so. So it isn't just transgenderism that falls under this, it's also suicide, cutting, getting privately drunk or high, gluttony, etc.
Lying to yourself is a sin, as is living according to a lie, and lying to others.
Rejecting a part of yourself, that is God's gift to you, is a sin.
The psychology of the situation goes to culpability, of course. I expect that there aren't many people who go in for serious and permanent self-harm and self-rejection that do not have some form of trauma, cultic brainwashing, or medical problems. But that is something that is to be met with the truth and pastoral care so they can learn to love themselves as Christ loves them. In a way, we want to help people to be culpable, because we want them to choose freely as well as correctly, which requires they make their choices with knowledge rather than blind groping. The children of God ought to be free.
As far as authoritative teaching is concerned, there hasn't been any ex cathedra magisterium on this, and I don't know of anything in the Church Councils that would apply. Most authoritative Church teaching comes in the form of Scripture and Tradition, reaffirmed in the ordinary teachings of bishops. What I said above is certainly to be found in all three of those, and direct statements on transgenderism are to be found in the statements of bishops (although you'll have to sort through some error among those).
Tbh, I'm not sure whether "transgenderism" includes those who have gender dysphoria without acting according it, or those who used to act according to it and don't anymore (but are still suffering from surgeries or the effects of wrong hormones). Those certainly aren't sins, because temptation isn't a sin, and the suffering that follows sin isn't a sin. But a lot of things that definitely are included in transgenderism are objectively sinful.
Gender dysphoria is like same-sex attraction, in that it is a set of persistent disordered emotions (and involuntary thoughts), which are a rejection of a core aspect of one's self. We all deal with disordered emotions and thoughts of many varieties (although they generally don't involve quite so much suffering). These are not sins. Acting and voluntarily thinking according to them is a sin, and it tends to make the emotions more persistent and powerful, and it deepens the wounds that might be causing the disordered emotions. (for LGBT, that's often, not always, sexual abuse or brainwashing, hence the increase in children identifying as the wrong sex). What we all ought to do with our disordered emotions and thoughts, is act according to the truth anyway. That is hard and it hurts, but it's not a sin and it doesn't damage us.
I doubt the USCCB will issue such a statement, given they couldn't agree on denying Holy Communion to politicians who openly support abortion through all 9 months. But there are individual bishops who offer guidance, if you sort through the mud.
Cardinal Sarah talked a little bit about it in his book "The Day is Now Far Spent".
Bishop Strickland has written at least 2 letters that address it (he's got some good references in this one): https://bishopstrickland.com/uploads/blog/26ec97d45678e55e87d26816e964d337e907113b.pdf
Around 17:00, Cardinal Burke speaks for a bit on transgenderism with a schoolteacher: https://www.catholicaction.org/conversation_with_cardinal_burke_2022_video
Thank you, I've been working on the compassion part for some time. :) But for many cases it would be very hard not to.
I find the increase in people identifying as the wrong gender to be troubling as well. I think it is due to a combination of an increase in sexual abuse of children (went from 20% of the population to 25% between 2010 and 2020), a dramatic increase in the number of parents and teachers, books and media that promote false gender ideology (there's books for preschoolers in Barnes & Nobles), and a general unwillingness to tell the truth about it (because there could be nasty consequences). I think you hit the nail on the head with the need for guidance. The attacks on religious liberty might be a blessing, in that some formerly silent people, unwilling to violate their consciences, will become witnesses to the truth.
Has it occurred to anyone that someone with gender dysphoria and pursues the medical profession's process, along with an examination of conscience and faith, might come out of the process loving the Lord more?
If gender dysphoria suddenly shows up in a previously comfortable girl now approaching puberty, chances are it's the very common dismay of having her body changed without her consent, so to speak. There is a growing body of anecdotal evidence that parents who drop all social media, increase time spent within the family, and family based activities see their daughter become more comfortable with their birth sex after several months to a year.
I can work with that. Puberty is an incredibly confusing time. Adding a claim of gender dysphoria makes the situation a whole lot messier.
The rule of thumb for us lay people is that the condition is "insistent, persistent, and consistent," where the persistence should be well over a year, probably two. Gender Dysphoria should be considered after all other possibilities are exhaustively examined.
Certainly Church encouragement, support & even advice is needed for Catholic parents raising children affected by gender dysphoria in a time when parent rights are being challenged or taken away by state governments, including threats of having their children removed if the parent disagrees their child has dysphoria.
ALT, could you a list a couple of your sources of these bishop statements about transgenderism that do NOT contain error?
Not sure what you're asking for here. Could you try rephrasing?
"Does not smell like Francis" sounds like a resume-builder to me.
We've had a coca wine that was endorsed by a Pope, and a beef tea that was endorsed by a Pope, but have we had a men's antiperspirant that was endorsed by a Pope?
First time for everything.
"When you'd rather reek of sheep than of papal corruption: eau de anything but Francis"
Based on Laudato Si and Laudae Deum, I would expect it to be "All Natural" and smell like patchouli.
If it did, we would need to open the windows.
Seems to me like a lot of dancing around the questions in an attempt not to offend anyone, and mainly just restating general guidelines and canon laws. The answer to question 2 is the most concerning to me, even though I could envision some narrow circumstances where a transgender person could be a godparent. There could be a possible situation such as someone who had surgery and later regrets it and reverts back to identifying as their biological sex...but then they wouldn't really be identifying as transgender, would they? I suspect the DDF was referring to people who identify as "transgender" and all that entails, so I'm not sure this kind of situation is what they had in mind. This is not even taking into account the requirement that two godparents have to be of the opposite sex, which is a whole other can of worms when you have a godparent who "identifies" as the opposite sex.
Overall the vagueness and imprecision in these answers is going to lead some priests to take advantage of the apparent permission of transgender people to fill these roles "under certain conditions" and it will be interpreted very liberally. And then on the other side there will be priests who will turn down some transgender person's request to be a sponsor and be vilified for a lack of "mercy" and for "discriminating", or whatever.
I immediately felt compassion for the priests who have to apply this, especially for the priests who turn down a request and are compared to the liberal minded priest in another Diocese. It will make the altar boy/girl allowance seem like old old school.
Yep, it seems mostly like the DDF is pushing this off on priests to figure out for themselves because they can't bring themselves to provide clear yes/no answers, much like the previous dubia submitted by the Cardinals. And the priests who actually have to deal with these situations are the ones who are going to suffer for it - mostly the ones who try to remain faithful to Church teaching and turn down prospective sponsors. I can definitely see situations in the future (and some have happened in the past already) where someone gets denied and they go running off to the local media, or the bishop and he disciplines the priest, etc. It's going to be a mess.
There is not a requirement that there are 2 godparents, 1 is sufficient, and they can also be called a baptismal sponsor. If the sponsor is transgender, and lives in a state incongruent with their natal sex, then it would be necessary to call them a baptismal sponsor in order to avoid causing scandal.
It wouldn't scandalize me.
“Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn to attack you“ Matthew 7:6. An often neglected pastoral principle of Jesus’ sermon on the mount for politically correct reasons. I believe this means discernment is necessary regarding to whom sacraments are given and their context of family life. Hard lines ought to be given for the sacraments especially those that require a culture and education for their growth, ie baptized children in family life. Specifically, that allowing baptism for the children of same sex attracted men and women denies the child proper Christian Education through family life. A transgender child or adult, is living a lie that manifests itself to the world that cannot be good Christian life conducive to fostering Marriage and Baptism.
One does not want "the sins of the fathers to be visited on the children". I hate the idea of children barred from Church sacraments because of what their sinful parents did to get them. But neither do I naively want to indulge wishful thinking at this time of the zeitgeist that SSA couples are coming to get their babies baptized, etc, for any reason other than making a political statement and to hammer in further a wedge into Catholic teaching on sexual morality. (You know, one reason I converted to Catholicism is I KNEW weird biological/sexual problems were going to be posed to Christianity and I trusted the Catholics over the Prots to give ancient teaching aligned answers somehow. O Dear Lord, Catholic Church please don't let me down!)
For a more comprehensive treatment of the subject, I recommend “Loving God’s Children: The Church and Gender Ideology,” available from Sophia Institute Press - https://sophiainstitute.com/product/loving-gods-children/
This smells exactly like Francis. He has been meeting with and giving green lights to "LGBTetc" activists for his entire pontificate. Just because he intersperses this with statements affirming orthodoxy does not mean he disagrees. Also, there are no circumstances in which Baptizing a person with gender dysphoria who has been surgically sterilized would not "cause scandal". There is nothing in the document to indicate that such a person would need to change in any way. This is merely a bone tossed to reassure Catholics that there is nothing unusual about this completely bizarre Dubia and response.
> Also, there are no circumstances in which Baptizing a person with gender dysphoria who has been surgically sterilized would not "cause scandal".
My understanding is that there are people who "transition" (attempt to physically become the other sex) and then "de-transition" (return to living like the rest of us to the extent possible. But some things cannot be undone; to pick the least invasive example: make a woman's voice deeper and it will always be deeper). I would hope that baptizing a person who has repented and turned around their life would not cause scandal, but of course it would at first glance, because a casual onlooker is not going to know the full history.
There are also people who do nothing surgical but choose to adopt the grooming, styling, and other standards secular society currently assigns to the other sex. Maybe odd but hardly the basis to deny someone baptism, particularly a baptism performed by a male cleric wearing lace and a cassock rather than pants.
There actually are circumstances where baptizing a person with gender dysphoria is a scandal (by which I mean the sin, and not just the upset ditherings of people with 2 sec. worth of knowledge).
When a person is baptized into the Faith, and professes the Faith, he also agrees to live according to the Faith. That is why people in RCIA must get any irregular marriages sorted out before they come into the Church. (Possible exceptions for living as brother and sister.) A lifestyle of adultery/fornication does not accord with the Faith. A person with gender dysphoria who recognizes this is disordered and has no intention of living according to the disorder can certainly get baptized. If being not quite right in the head were a barrier to baptism, no one could be baptized. But if the person fully intends to continue presenting and acting as the opposite sex, he is lacking in the agreement to live according to the Faith, and for a cleric to know this and baptize him anyway would cause scandal.
Amazing. If a layman doesn't want to wear pants but dresses up in lace and a skirt, he is denied baptism. But if a cleric wants to wear a cassock and lace, good for him.
If a woman takes vows and changes her name to a male Saint's good for her.
Intention matters. A cassock and a lacy alb are men's clothing, and clearly discernable as not a dress. A nun who takes the name "Joseph", is still addressed as "Sister". Neither is pretending to be the opposite sex. Both would take offense if you treated them as the opposite sex.
Odd how you wish to judge by the most superficial thing, rather than the heart.
My point is not to judge and deny baptism on superficial things like names and attire. What is in the heart is known by the person seeking baptism.
What baptism means is not instinctive knowledge planted in the heart at birth. A person can believe that they very much want something because they don't know what it is and what it will require of them. To baptize someone who doesn't know what they're asking for or agreeing to isn't merciful, it's a violation of informed consent, and bears more resemblance to proselytizing than conversion. In extreme cases it can completely invalidate the Sacrament.
You do know we baptize infants?
Their parents consent for them. But this IS why it is so important that there be a founded expectation that the parents will actually raise them Catholic.
An expectation that is to be discerned at the personal level.
Yes. At the personal level of the person doing the baptizing.
"people who identify as LGBT "
Oh dear. There is SO much to unpack in this one sentence alone.
A natural question arising from the DDF response to Question 1 (which I was surprised wasn't addressed in the response) is: if transgender-identifying individuals are to be baptized, what name are they baptized with? Is he or she to be baptized with the name given to them in accord with their actual sex, or with their post-transition name? Will Jimothy be baptized as Stacey? Will Barbie be baptized as Ken?
The name thing actually matters (especially since the person's name is explicitly stated as part of the formula), and I can imagine that baptizing a male individual ("Jimothy") with a socially-female name ("Stacey") would be a cause for scandal and thus impede the imposition of the sacrament.
people are baptized under the name they choose. it really would be a pretty clear dick move to require trans people to use names "socially" linked with their sex assigned at birth. if that causes a scandal for some people, then maybe those people need to stick their noses elsewhere.
I think you're smart enough to know what the point I'm making is, and you're missing it. Obviously one can "choose a name" in the sense that, for example, if I were to enter RCIA I could be baptized "Matt" or "Matthew." And a woman named "Thelma" could (in theory, only because there's no canon to explicitly preclude this) prefer to be baptized as "Louise" (although even then, that is an exceedingly uncommon and far more complicated situation than you make it out to be).
But if you honestly think that if a woman named "Lucy" attempts to transition into a man and wants to be baptized as "Ricky," that could never possibly create public scandal (considering the Church has a pretty clear and defined anthropological understanding that humans are a male-female binary determined by biological sex) and imply a tacit affirmation by the Church to something heterodox, then you are not to be taken seriously.
I once knew a set of twins who, at baptism, the priest accidentally swapped the names of the two little baby boys. The parents didn't just say "meh, the name thing doesn't really matter and anybody can choose anything," or "let's just do it again with the correct names," they actually went through the process of legally changing the names of their twin boys to match the baptismal reality. A middle schooler could understand that the name matters because baptism imparts a permanent indelible mark and bestows an identity that cannot be wipe away. Even taking on a religious name in vows doesn't change that identity. In Christ, you are and always will be Joseph.
And don't give me the cheap "well it's none of your business" crud; it is my business since, theologically, we are made one body in Christ, and practically, because what you choose to be named affects other people who interact with you or speak about you (don't people complain about "deadnaming"?)
I understood you perfectly well. as I said before, my view is that if it causes "scandal" to some, I am willing to let them be scandalized. I don't have any level of sympathy at all for your desire to micromanage the lives of trans people.
Joseph, your feelings and insistence for personal autonomy is standard op in the non-Catholic world, but to enter the Catholic Church requires surrendering the commonly held individualistic independence of US society. It's a serious thing to become Catholic. You promise obedience to the teachings of the Catholic Church. One is constantly asked through the years if you still believe in the virgin birth, the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, in life after death. Outside the Church, scandal is fun. It's a goal, even. Inside the Church, scandal is heartbreaking. One is disappointing Jesus and making it harder for others to live as Christ wants everyone to live. But there's nothing like the freedom I found in becoming Catholic. I hope you will look into it more. But it's really different!
lmao, what are you doing now, questioning my Catholic cred? I'm not any less Catholic than you because I take a different view of what should be expected of transgender Catholics. causing scandal is inherent to being a Christian- if you're not "sending the wrong message" to some, then you're not imitating Christ. and I do not object to the articles of the creed you mention, but there is a place in the Church for dissent on some topics.
Here's what makes this more complicated: names have historically traveled between the sexes. We've had guys named Mario and girls named Josephine for many centuries. You can actually honor and take patron saints who don't share your sex, and take their name. The fact that we now have this social innovation introduces new cases where the intent is wholly different from the historical use: whereas my grandmother may have named my mother Jean in honor of St John the Baptist, my daughter may be naming my granddaughter Jon as a denial of the truth of biological sex.
If we try to write a law to address the second case, how do we do so without either invalidating the historical practice or introducing some kind of mind-reading or at least a legalistic "orthodoxy pledge" (like having the parents sign a statement that they are not using this name as a denial of reality?)
I actually think leaving it up to the pastor's judgment is probably the least bad option here.
People give their little girl babies masculine names with some regularity, and what happens over time is that the perception of the name changes from "boy" to "neutral" to "girly" and eventually people don't use that name for little boy babies anymore. So I don't think we should panic too hard about baptismal names. God adopts sinners into His family on a pretty regular basis, and none of them fully understand how much He is going to ask of them (in spite of that Gospel reading about "hey don't try building a tower until you have budgeted for it, and don't fight a big army with a little one although we did kind of just read about that in Maccabees because that's not what I'm talking about" we do not actually calculate the cost, which is literally everything and I mean literally.) If someone recklessly has himself or herself baptized as a Catholic without actually holding all of the truths of the Catholic faith, he or she is kind of asking for it (I don't know what will happen - potentially, sainthood, which is the kind of adventure that only a fool would sign up for, such as young St Teresa of Avila toddling off to ask someone to martyr her), and if the instructor did his/her job then it's not the instructor's fault, but if the instructor also does not really hold as true everything that is true, then the instructor should hold onto his/her hat also, because God is not going to build the Four-Story Mistake (shoutout to Enright fans, if any) if He can get away with doing a lot more.
The problem really isn't about the names so much as the intention.
Besides the ambiguity in boy vs. girl names, there are a lot of nuns who take the names of male Saints when they make their vows. They are making a statement about their identity, but NOT about their gender identity.
Personally, I expect that a transgender person who truly rejected transgenderism, would not want to keep a name that they had assumed for the purposes of identifying as the wrong gender. Whether they choose to return to their original name or to pick a new name (there was a custom in the early Church for people with pagan names to choose a new name at baptism), totally up to them. I can also imagine a situation in which a person might legitimately want to keep their changed name, but I don't think that will be typical, and would probably bear some looking into by their priest/catechist - more likely that the person hasn't received sufficient formation to convert (regardless of whether that is anyone's fault) than that they have a correct understanding and intentions in that choice. This is less about the name, and more about helping a person who needs it. Think generosity, not the mere meeting of obligations.
As far as changing their names *legally* is concerned, that is a PROCESS, and shouldn't cause a delay in baptism.
People who ignorantly do not agree with all of the truths of the Catholic faith get baptized all the time. It hurts them to believe a lie, sometimes gravely, but unless their ignorance is deliberate or due to negligence, it's not a sin. People who knowingly reject Church teaching and get baptized have a much bigger problem: they are in mortal sin for the heresy and they have committed sacrilege as well (against Baptism, and Confirmation, and the Eucharist, all within minutes of each other). They do not receive the graces of being within the Church, because they are spiritually dead. Of course, sin can be followed with repentance and ultimately holiness. But there's very good reason to do that before baptism, rather than someday maybe.
I wonder how many people have been denied baptism by refusing to accept the Church's teaching on labor unions?
Given that it's a prudential moral teaching, probably none.
it is not a prudential teaching, but binding on all Catholics.
Refresh my memory, please.
Rerum Novarum
Perhaps something more specific and brief, that could actually be put to a catechumen?
CCC 2430
I was a evangelical Christian til I was 45 when I converted (long story of course). I've now been Catholic over 2 decades. I find there are STILL nooks and corners that come to light that I must tussle over to see if they can be converted at last. I love the Church because people have been so patient with my residual protestantism. It's like I'm a tree. All that protestant wood is now overlaid with a nearly equal amount of Catholic wood, and it's wonderful.
As a cradle Catholic, I expect there will always be nooks and corners, and occasionally whole rooms that somehow got overlooked, that need converting. "Tussle" is a great word for it. The cure is sometimes worse than the disease... but being cured is always far better.
The Dubia does not spell out the very reasonable context that you provide. It is silent on the state of the hypothetical person requesting Baptism. Thus we will all fill in that blank with our own preconceptions, rather than the unbroken teaching of the Church that you spell out. You correct the error in the Dubia but why didn’t the Dubia provide it?
If you asked this DDF if it is permissible to kill a person, they would respond with "yes, under certain circumstances. However, it is not a right to kill a person, so pastoral discernment should be excercised to ensure no moral confusion or scandal is caused by each individual case of killing people."
It's not incorrect. It just misleads.
I find the document, while needing to be teased out further to offer practical guidance on certain aspects (namely what would give a priest hope that a child would be raised in the Catholic faith), to be instructive to those who would be inclined to blindly allow sacramental access to anyone identifying as LGBT as well as those who would be inclined to blindly reject sacramental access indiscriminately. For the question of baptism, it is worth remembering that it is the sacrament of salvation. When I read some commentary from fellow Catholics, it seems like some of us are demanding that a person who identifies as LGBT and has navigated that in varying ways up until presenting for baptism, is expected to have made decisions in line with church teaching while in a state of original sin and apart from receiving the theological virtues and sanctifying grace. It’s as if we need to be demonstrating by our lives the fruits of the sacrament of Baptism to earn it, rather than Baptism being the catalyst for deeper conversion and virtue. I am grateful that Christ and his Church did not withhold Baptism from me and many others who approached it while we were still sinners, not after we were free from sin. It teaches a fundamental reality of our faith about the salvific nature of grace. I definitely submit to the wisdom of the church that recognizes that sacramental access is not something you give just because someone wants it, and yet as I read the comments I am struck by how little nuance is imagined for what the Holy Spirit is doing when he pursues those of us who experience gender distress or same-sex sexuality. Perhaps God desires to invite the souls of people some of us can’t imagine being and/or becoming virtuous people to enter more fully into communion with Him and His Church. And perhaps if we are horrified by that, it’s a place for greater conversion in our own hearts. I’ve been told that I ought to pray for the desire to want the person I feel most attacked by to be in heaven with me one day. I would commend that prayer to those of us who want to, on principle, deny access to sacramental grace to entire groups of people. I would also encourage us to get to know the very people that would and are presenting to Catholic Churches who have transitioned previously. I have been struck by the work God is doing in them to draw them deeper into communion with him. The humility and willingness to submit to the authority of Christ that they demonstrate is something we could all learn from. Not every person who experiences same sex attraction and/or gender discordance is the same. Many would be a gift to the Church as Christ draws them into deeper relationship with him and transforms them. We all suffer when we decide Christ only saves those like us.
Oh boy, so much to talk about here. Your assumption (and it is a vast assumption on your part) that everyone who has a problem with the DDF's responses is unkind and lacking in Christian charity is at best a rather shallow assessment of everyone's understanding and motivation for what they say. Saying that everyone who is raising concerns about what has been promulgated (or not, in this case) thinks that "Christ only saves those like us" indicates to me that you may not really understand what conversion is and what it truly entails (a rather important part of accepting Baptism and giving Christian witness).
To put it as simply as possible, as the late Francis Cardinal George has been quoted (by Bishop Robert Barron), "Everyone is welcome to come to Jesus Christ. Everyone. But we must come to Him on His terms, not our own." You simply cannot come to Christ and tell Him that you are going continue in your old life while at the same time taking on a new life in Christ (as our baptismal promises make clear that we are doing). That would be trying to love two masters. And we all know what Jesus said about THAT.
These choices to live according to the flesh cannot continue if you want to walk His path. And for us as Christians to pretend that you can (which is what we do if we do not make all possible efforts to see that those who come into the fold though Baptism do so with the clear understanding of what it means AND the clear and demonstrative desire to follow those commandments, or to be educated and guided in the faith by the godparents) is where the scandal occurs. It is a scandal because it is a lie. It is a lie because it suggests that you do not need conversion, that you are good enough as you are right now and no course correction or change in your life is necessary (of course, if that is true, then why do you need Baptism?). It is contrary to what Jesus Himself made clear in the Gospels. I will always believe that, unless you can show me otherwise.
This is where so many of us are having issue with the responses to the dubia, because it leaves way too much open to "interpretation" (as is typical of this pontificate). It SEEMS to suggest that there is no clear objective moral imperative to convert from the old life anymore. Just as long as the person is a "good person" and "loves Jesus" - whatever that might mean to them or the priest talking to that person - is all that is required. Not true. Dying to yourself and the ways of the flesh, the world, and the Devil and putting on the new self that is dedicated to the way of God is non-negotiable. And that implies behaving according to the commandments of the Father (ALL of them). They are non-negotiable as well.
While you are correct that perfection is NOT required for baptism, no one here is saying that it is. What we are saying is that to be baptized makes a clear statement that you understand that you are a sinner in need of conversion and you fully intend to walk away from the old sinful life as best you can each and every moment that you draw breath. As St. Catherine of Genoa said, "God does not demand perfection, but He does demand that we attempt to attain it." I would add the word "constantly" to that quote. The DDF's responses, however, indicate (at least in my reading) that maybe that's not the case anymore. That we baptize and then "hope" the person will work on it at some point in their life, without so much as a basic discussion with said person about what they may be doing is wrong. Or at least, it opens the door to this. So much for protecting the Deposit of Faith.
I had an anguished exchange with a recently baptized adult convert today. As an OCIA catechist who walked alongside her for three long years, I am so sad at this latest pronouncement. My friend had a very difficult and time-consuming annulment process and undertook that process seriously and trusting that the Church wanted her to enter into communion in a state of readiness, submission, and obedience. The reporting on this newest "clarification" by the DDF obviously causes distrust and wariness.
It's wearying dealing with ambiguity like this. Shame on those who are supposed to communicate moral and theological truth to us and who refuse to be clear.
Dealing with the Church hierarchy's ambiguity and scandal is quite distressing and unavoidably common. Do you have any thoughts on whether that is something that should be addressed in the course of preparation for entering the Church or not?
I don’t know. Really. I remember that when I came into the church twenty years ago, I was told by a catechist that things are not as they should be. But she left it vague. The ambiguity and confused messaging is a reality, of course, but I don’t know if discussing it at the outset would help or if it would discourage people enough to postpone or turn away from seeking entrance into the Church.
That's fair. I think it should be dealt with at some level of abstraction before they enter, but how and when and to what extent - I'm clueless.
I'm troubled about comments below saying make baptism easy. I mean, we're talking about Jesus torture death for our salvation. Does His pain count so little? Shouldn't there be a difference how baptism is perceived by an infant, a teen, an adult coming to receive it?
I think what the person you are responding to was trying to say is what a friend of mine frequently said: God catches his fish before He cleans them.
Theologians have pretty well documented that the prior teaching had underlying assumptions that lgbt couples were not acting in accord with how they were made; rather, it was a rebellious act or choice against nature. So in light of more well-founded psychology this step seems reasonable.
So...if you're in Germany and nothing apparently causes scandal then the DDF would let anything go. But in a more orthodox area then it's not allowed? I think baptism really really has to lean towards letting people get baptized; we should be as free as possible with it. Really put the "burden" on the person coming to get baptized. for other sacraments the church can be more selective.
Very interesting thought on the culture in which a baptism is performed.
I also have general operating principle of (generally speaking) being very liberal with admission to baptism. Perhaps my earlier comments on this article muddled that. It's the "name" aspect that I think needs to be parced out further in prudential judgement. But yes, more people baptized, please!
Baptism certainly is the sacrament that least merits some Catholic SAT test before reception.
In reality, how many trans ppl are actually seeking the circumstances listed in this Dubia? This seems like a much more theoretical exercise than one seeking to solve a problem. I’m sure it occurs, but not a pressing issue.
But ask a question about whether remarried divorcees can receive communion... don’t expect an answer.
I thought an answer had been implied by Pope Francis when it came to light he answered the 4 dubia from Cardinal Sarah(?) et al living and dead from 2014? It read like divorced were pretty much "lumped in" with gays, meaning both were now under the same new vaguely suggested procedures.
I take a small revel when filling out paper forms and asked my “gender” by crossing that out, replacing it with “sex” before answering.
As a former RCIA Director, I would read these responses in line with the Code of Canon law and the norms laid out in The Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults. In particular if you follow the RCIA guidelines you will have a clear way to make pastoral judgements. I think Q1 has to be left open because at minimum we have to allow for detransitioners who have undergone permanent hormonal and surgical changes to enter the Church.