|
Published: March 1, 2008
“Moral victory against Catholics”
Seton Medical Center does about-face, will allow transsexual to get breast-enhancement surgery
A Catholic hospital that refused to allow its facilities to be used for breast implant surgery on a man who had undergone a sex-change operation has backed down and will now allow the procedure.
 In 2006, a doctor told Charlene Hastings, 57, that Seton Medical Center in Daly City would not allow him to perform breast-enhancement surgery on a transsexual. Hastings then called Seton to learn more, reported the Jan. 5 San Jose Mercury News. Hastings told the newspaper the inquiry elicited the following responses from a Seton surgical coordinator: “It’s not God’s will,” and “God made you a man.”
A 2006 memo sent by Seton Medical Center to physicians said that “transgender procedures or procedures that are part of the transgendering process may not be performed at Seton, as Seton is a Catholic Hospital.”
On Dec. 21, Hastings filed suit in San Francisco Superior Court against the hospital, a part of the Daughters of Charity Health System. The suit alleges that Seton violated state law, which allows religiously-based hospitals to refuse to perform abortions but makes no religious exemption for a denial of elective surgery to transgenders.
On Feb. 27, the Bay Area television broadcast CBS 5 News announced that “transgender Charlene Hastings has claimed moral victory against Catholics.” In what CBS 5 News called “a veiled mea culpa,” the hospital issued a written statement to CBS 5, in which a spokesman said, “We regret any confusion that may have come from this situation. We want this patient and her physician to know that they are welcome at Seton Medical Center.”
Seton, however, says Catholic teaching still prohibits it to accommodate sex-reversal procedures.
“I’m glad that they’ve recognized that they’ve made a mistake,” said Hastings in an interview with CBS 5 News. But her attorney, Chris Dolan, was more belligerent. Referring to the hospital’s statement, he told CBS 5, “I don’t know where the confusion is, other than perhaps they were confused that that was illegal.” Despite the hospital’s reversal, Dolan said the lawsuit for monetary damages would go forward. “Like any good religious experience, first you need enlightenment and then you need atonement,” said Dolan. “And what we have here perhaps is a glimpse of enlightenment. Has it changed their heart? I don’t think so. Will it change their practice? It better.”
Hasting, however, will not get his surgery at Seton, saying he is not “comfortable” because he would feel the hospital would be “doing it under duress.”
As CBS 5 hinted, the lawsuit apparently was not really about one hospital or one incident. “In this case,” said the television news announcer, “Hastings got civil rights to trump religious beliefs.”
Posted Saturday, March 01, 2008 12:22 AM By Lisa T.
I was hoping the Catholic hospital wouldn't back down but guess who their bishop is? Yep, good old Archbishop (allows S&M groups to rent out MHR's parish hall, gives communion to drag queen nuns, etc, etc.) George Niederauer. Nope, don't think there's much support from the chancery offices.****************************************************************************************************************************************DEAR HOLY FATHER, PLEASE SEND CALIFORNIA ORTHODOX BISHOPS THAT HAVE SPINES.
|
Posted Saturday, March 01, 2008 4:03 AM By KaraLynn
Be afraid, be very afraid.
|
Posted Saturday, March 01, 2008 5:48 AM By stellewriter
Every ten minutes a child is born, 1/2500, in which the doctor cannot determine the sex, or gender. These children are Intersex; they are born into a life of not male or female. Likewise in similar fashion the Transsexual is identified with a Bioneurological congenital condition they too are locked into something not quite so clearly defined as male, or female. The best we can do is live as close to what we seem to believe we are. That may preclude the wants, and often ignorant and bigoted beliefs of others. In what case do we ignore this issue and abandon the children who now cannot hide? How can anyone continue in hate and prejudice so as to deny simple equality and justice? It is either time for change and understanding, or simply wheedle out the transgender element as inhuman and adopt the final solution as Hitler visualized? Not an easy thing to resolve, but one that is present and will not go away.
I can appreciate another’s opinion, and the freedom to express same, But I would hope they would be with regard to the children and those who are not so fortunate to have been born by someone’s idea of “normal.”
|
Posted Saturday, March 01, 2008 6:42 AM By Grisha
Well here we go again with transgender issues! To start off, can anyone summerize, with some sort of citation, what the Church teaches about this? I don't mean someone's personal interptation of scripture and I realize the Catachisim is silent here, but thier must be something , at some level of authority about this, especally regarding sex change operations.
|
Posted Saturday, March 01, 2008 7:42 AM By Sarah
Why do you insist on using the male pronoun when referring to Charlene, if she has had the gender reassignment surgery then she would be female. The only way one can determine what 'sex' someone might be would to do a chromosomal testing. Society must realize that there is more to our human race than the binary system of pigeon-holing people than we insist on using. How does society categorize individuals who are inter sexed.
It saddens me that the writer is so rigid in his thinking. This is just one of the many rigid moral decrees of the Catholic teaching that I can not reconcile. And which eventually led me away from the faith that I grew up believing.
|
Posted Saturday, March 01, 2008 7:48 AM By simone_dubois
It seemed that Seton Hospital was going to be a witness to the world, thereby affecting the world. Instead the world has affected Seton Hospital and not for the better.
|
Posted Saturday, March 01, 2008 8:31 AM By Lisa T.
"Seton, however, says Catholic teaching still prohibits it to accommodate sex-reversal procedures." *******************If the hospital is now willing to perform breast implant surgery on a man isn't that a partial sex-reversal procedure?********************The next thing you know a woman will file suit against Seton because the hospital gave Hastings breast implants but won't give her testicles.*****************From reading this article it sounds like Seton will allow partial sex change procedures but not complete package.
|
Posted Saturday, March 01, 2008 8:46 AM By June V
Shame on Seton Hospital!!! If the Archbishop wasn't so afraid of the homosexual community he would stand up for Catholic values and stop Seton from performing this atrocity.Dear God and Blessed Mother what has happened to our Church and its' affiliates???? May God have mercy on their souls.
|
Posted Saturday, March 01, 2008 9:05 AM By Camille
We truly are liviing in the time of the third world war. Only this was is a war of morals on the one hand and laws fired off against those morals.
We don't have to wonder what it would be like to live under a repressive government, we are there already.
Eve bit into the forbidden apple and hospitals are biting into the forbidden money of immorality.
|
Posted Saturday, March 01, 2008 10:36 AM By Betty
I'm glad to read that he/she won't be having it done at Seton after all because they would be doing it under duress. Isn't that what's happening or am I wrong? They threatened to sue and the hospital backed down. That sounds like duress to me. And he/she is still suing for damages? What damages? The hospital said no and then it said yes. Can't a hospital change its mind ?
|
Posted Saturday, March 01, 2008 11:27 AM By Maria C
We live in a country where Christians are sometimes forced to do something against their will. I feel bad for this hospital, the sisters didn't want this procedure done but the lawsuit forced them to bow down to this great evil! My heart goes out to this hospital. We Christians should also have the right to refuse such great evils. Why aren't our religious freedom being protected! Why, oh may our Lord have mercy on our great America, the beautiful! This country which once brought freedom to all Christians, we Catholics once were able to practice our moral values freely and now we are forced to shut up and take it. America the beautiful, may God shed it's grace on thee! May our Lord give us courage and perserverence to fight the good fight no matter what the outcome. Courage, take courage my friends. God bless you!
|
Posted Saturday, March 01, 2008 11:31 AM By John L. Sillasen
Grisha, the Church is clear. No sex outside of marriage. There is no purpose for intersex people to do surgery, since there is no reason they should engage in sex. Many normal people do not engage in sex; the Commandment states clearly "Do not engage in sex unless you are married as defined by the Church, and then only to your spouse, and not prohibiting the procreation of new human life" ... now there are those who see human zygotes, embryos, fetuses, babies, children up to the age of 14, and various others as non-human and thus murderable, abuseable, etc. The Church is clear ... it is the homosexual community which is confused; no matter how clear the statement, they don't get it. But what does one expect, since homosexual behavior is the result of sin? Sin makes for confusion ... this is why so many people try to keep from sin, as it's kind of like the natural sense of vision, where one is naturally inclined to focus one's eyes when looking at something. It's why people spend so much time, effort and money on corrective lenses for clearing up their vision. Unlike intersex conditions, there is no commandment against clear vision. Thus lenses are good; however, surgery for intersex or sex change is bad because it has to do with sex against the rule of God.
|
Posted Saturday, March 01, 2008 12:27 PM By Grisha
John L: You of course are right about the Church teaching. However gender and sexual activity don't necessarly go hand in hand. If a man, who is perhaps celibate anyway, want's to become a woman because he "feels like a woman inside," where is the sin in ~ as taught by church authority, ~ gender reassignment surgery?
|
Posted Saturday, March 01, 2008 12:32 PM By Barbie
Jesus' love for the transgendered. Deuteronomy 22:5 (and most of the Old Testament) is repealed in Acts 15:11,19-20, again in 24-29, and again in Acts 21:25, which is why people today don't worry about wearing blended fabric (Deut 22:11), tassels on their coats (22:12) or stoning non virgin brides to death (22:13-21.)
Some say that God made man and woman separately and that there can be no blurring between the two. But Galatians 3:28 says there is no male or female, all are one in Christ Jesus. 1 Corinthians 11:2 says all Christians are brides of Christ, a theme repeated in Revelations 18 through 22. And of course there is the very important Matthew 7:1-2, which cautions people not to judge others, because they themselves will be judged just as harshly.
When did God give us the right to judge others? I must of missed the memo. We are doctors, lawyers, NASA engineers, research scientists, Priests and Preachers, computer hardware and software engineers, husbands and wives. We may even be your neighbors and you would never know. My God made me the same as He made you. I'm not a freak nor an abomination of nature nor a sin in God's eyes, only in your eyes. You are able to post your comments because someone like me designed the software code to allow computers to talk to one another. Ms. Hastings is a human and deserves respect as such. Obviously something some good Christians seem to reserve for their chosen anointed ones. She was suing to have breast augmentation which was approved and then canceled when the staff found out she was post op.
The bigotry of those who claim to be educated Christians never fails to amaze me.
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TSsuccesses/TSsuccesses.html
|
Posted Saturday, March 01, 2008 1:27 PM By Sheila
I am saddened at Seton bending to this proposed law suit. This comes down to freedom. Freedom of an entity that says this is contrary to what we believe is morally right. Then, the entity is forced to abide by what is morally wrong by the law and law suits. Where is freedom for Seton to decide what it will and will not do? Looks like Seton will not have to go ahead with the surgery on this transgender individual, as he/she really only wanted to bring a Catholic institution to its knees. Looks like everyone else has freedom, but not a Catholic hospital. Sad, very sad. I can see Jesus going through the lobby of Seton overturning tables and desks with the money piled up asking those in attendance what have they done. Someone, probably the archbishop, will have to answer Jesus in the not too distant future!
|
Posted Saturday, March 01, 2008 1:37 PM By John Andersen
stellewriter: Your numbers are WAY different than anything I have read. Can you please share your (hopefully credible) sources with us? Thanks.
|
Posted Saturday, March 01, 2008 1:39 PM By John Andersen
For all of you that are concerned with Seton's action: I hope you are helping to gather signatures for the marriage ammendment here in CA, and that you will help gather signatures to repeal SB777 in about a month.
|
Posted Saturday, March 01, 2008 1:42 PM By Lisa T.
Stellewriter and Grisha,
So where should we draw the line? I'm sure there are humans out there who feel they are both male and female with all the mentally disordered people in the world. So would it be okay for someone who feels they are both male and female to have surgery to make them a hermaphrodite? If this were to happen maybe society would then set up laws so people could marry themselves.
|
Posted Saturday, March 01, 2008 1:43 PM By Lisa T.
Stellewriter and Grisha,
So where should we draw the line? I'm sure there are humans out there who feel they are both male and female with all the mentally disordered people in the world. So would it be okay for someone who feels they are both male and female to have surgery to make them a hermaphrodite? If this were to happen maybe society would then set up laws so people could marry themselves.
|
Posted Saturday, March 01, 2008 1:51 PM By Joan
One thing to mention, sex and gender are not as straight forward as some would like to believe. Some conditions of intersex include:
CAIS - the individual has completely female external genitals, but has a blind vagina. They are unquestionably female, but are XY.
PAIS - the individual has external genitals intermediate between male and female. They are XY, and may have male or female gender identity.
CAH- the individual has an error in the genes controlling the production of cortisol, leaving an excess of androgens. They are XX, but may have male external genitals, or some intermediate stage between male and female. Sexual orientation and gender identity may vary between heterosexual female to lesbian and from female to male gender identity.
|
Posted Saturday, March 01, 2008 1:59 PM By Joan
There are also these conditions:
The individual is XY, but with a defective/missing SRY region of the Y chromosome. The individual has female external genitals and internal organs, but only streak ovaries. The individual is unquestionabley female, and can even bear children by invitro fertilization of a donor ova. The condition is known as gonadal agenesis.
An individual may be XX, but have the SRY region translocated to one of their X chromosomes. They have male genitals, and internal organs, and have some degree of fertility. They are unquestionably male.
|
Posted Saturday, March 01, 2008 2:04 PM By Joan
Now, for the question of gender identity. The conditions for developing gender identity are set in the womb. It has been demonstrated, many times, an androgen receptor blocker, will prevent the testosterone from entering the brain cells. Without androgen in the brain cells, the brain will develop in a female pattern. The results of these animal studies would also apply to humans. Since the brain develops female, the person is most likely to identify as female.
|
Posted Saturday, March 01, 2008 2:40 PM By John Andersen
Joan: Thanks for the info. I have the same question I had for stellewriter. What are the numbers of people that have these conditions? Your sources? And for your last post, can you please share a source or article I can read? Thanks.
|
Posted Saturday, March 01, 2008 3:16 PM By Joan
It isn't a funny joke, to joke about people marrying themselves. I know National Lampoon ran a parody of Cosmopolitan magazine with a story, "I was a single bride", about a woman marrying herself, the person she loved the most.
Now, for the real world. A woman did actually marry herself, because she wanted all the wedding presents. But, she did not want the responsibilities of having a partner.
It does not make a good joke.
|
Posted Saturday, March 01, 2008 4:38 PM By Maria C
John Andersen our church is helping with the gathering of these signatures. I signed it and my whole family already did as well. Hope we can help this way. : )
|
Posted Saturday, March 01, 2008 4:42 PM By Bob L
If Charlene(Charles) Hastings had been told by Seton Medical Cntr. that they don't do enhancement surgery on transsexuals, that should be the end of the story. Where there no other hospitals available to him in N. California & was this an emergency that was life-saving? Was there an underlying agenda for notoriety & a possible lawsuit for financial gain? C'mon people, we've become a litiginous society & those attorney's who threaten or bring charges such as this one aren't concerned about the person's rights more like concern for $$$$$, in or out of court. God save us.
|
Posted Saturday, March 01, 2008 6:35 PM By Joan
The most definitive article on human neurobiology and gender identity is the one published by Swaab et al in Nature during 1995. They observed female pattern in the hypothalamus of transsexual males, independent of whether they had been on HRT. The laboratory animal studies were done with rats, and have been repeated a number times. I have seen the journal articles, but at this time I cannot remember in which journal, the articles were published.
|
Posted Saturday, March 01, 2008 6:51 PM By gravey
Bob,
I think you got it. This is not about intersex, chromosomes or gender reassignment; it's about sticking it to the Catholic Church. The dogs had their first taste of blood with the abuse scandal and they're not about to stop. Soon, anyone publically standing up for the Faith will be fair game.
|
Posted Saturday, March 01, 2008 6:53 PM By Sidney Jude
I was once standing in line in a grocery store in San Francisco. Two older women were in line ahead of me. One turned to the other and said "My niece is getting married this weekend--to a man!" Where else would it have been necessary to specify that the marriage partner was someone of the opposite sex? The Bay Area has really gone off the rails, whether about transgenderism or gay marriage. God save us, indeed.
|
Posted Saturday, March 01, 2008 7:04 PM By xrk9854
This is a victory for common sense. California has clear laws and the hospital takes the states money and thereby is obligated to follow state law. No if, ands, or buts.
It is also quite shameful that MY Church has undertaken this crusade against people born transsexual. This is blatant discrimination hiding behind a religious facade. Jesus loved and accepted ALL. The Church has truly lost its way.
|
Posted Saturday, March 01, 2008 7:29 PM By John L.
Why do the experiments have to be repeated?
|
Posted Saturday, March 01, 2008 7:35 PM By John L. Sillasen
Grisha, the sin is vanity. God has dissed "painted women" strongly ... why? Vanity. Deception. The devil is the father of liars, and deceivers. ++++++++++ Barbie, if you do sex apart from your spouse in a Catholic recognized marriage, then you sin. Jesus said the Law is not abolished; obviously those penalties are what those people deserve; however, Christ's mercy has given such people more days to consider their eternal situation.
|
Posted Saturday, March 01, 2008 7:40 PM By John L. Sillasen
Geez, Barbie, you sound like algore, inventor of the internet. Deception, deception, deception!!! The reason that Catholics communicate the will of God, the Gospel, is not due to the internet, but to God, Whose will it is that His Word goes into the corners of the world. It is not intellect applied to technology that saves the world, but Jesus Christ. You rant about the superiority of educated Christians, but neglect to understand what the education is for. You need to educate yourself on the reality and nature of God.
|
Posted Saturday, March 01, 2008 7:54 PM By John L. Sillasen
There is a novel from the 60s with a character who rapes vending machines. So, now with "robo" people, it looks possible that one could have a sex/species/machine alteration assignment surgery. Then to cap off any linguering ... you know that they're going to come up with new science that brains can be all sorts of configurations, and then we'll be seeing brain reassignments. Well, here is what the real deal is folks: Demonic. I've seen the contortions in faces of dozens of troubled people, and even thousands when I protested the first annual pro-choice rally in Wash DC. All you have to do is look into their faces, and you see the demonic expressed there. I've never heard anyone else comment on this claim of mine, but likely they fear being labeled over the top or whatever. That's all we're seeing on this cyber discussion, never ceasing images of what can be done to distort human beings. First they claim God makes hermaphrodites, and then they claim He doesn't and that they have to be altered. The homosexual activists simply do not want to love God, and would rather find innumerable ways to add vinegar to the wounds of the Fall. It's all about sex and vanity instead of about God.
|
Posted Saturday, March 01, 2008 8:10 PM By gravey
Please continue xrk9854, we are listening...
|
Posted Saturday, March 01, 2008 8:39 PM By Joan
John asks, "Why do the animal experiments need to be repeated?"
One of the tests for validity of experimental results is they are repeatable, and not just a fluke happening. If a scientific experiment consistently presents the same results, it is highly probable the results are valid.
|
Posted Saturday, March 01, 2008 9:31 PM By John L. Sillasen
xrk9854, it is not your Church. It is Christ's Church. He is the Bridegroom and the Church is His Bride. Woman was made for man, not man for woman ... see how your priorities are confused from your homosexual advocacy?
|
Posted Saturday, March 01, 2008 9:40 PM By Elisabeth
Regarding the purpose of sex. What about all the priests having sex out of marriage. And sex that is usually gay sex at that? This isn't to be flip or sarcastic. It's a real issue. I just don't understand the hypocrisy.
|
Posted Saturday, March 01, 2008 9:48 PM By John L. Sillasen
What fluke, Joan? If you are sufficiently aware of the nature of the experiment, ie if you have sufficiently defined the experiment, then there will not be a fluke, and only one time is necessary to find valid results. If you are not fully aware of the nature of the experiment, then your results are questionable, and you cannot make a valid conclusion. If you are not sufficiently aware, then it has been defined insufficiently. What is the science you are involved with, other than an ongoing process, with no final and absolute conclusions? Yes, you learn new stuff, but your conclusions are simply guesses in the never ending cycles of experiments. There is no absolute truth to what you find, merely facts. This is why God has given us His Law, because He knows we will never arrive at the absolute truth on our own. So He provides it for us ... ie, Jesus Christ, the Word of God Who always existed, and through Whom all things that are made were made. Himself, God, He has given us ... Absolute Truth. Can you believe it? It is so simple. Seek first the Kingdom of God, and then all shall be added to you. If you're going to do science, then do it for the glory of Jesus Christ and the salvation of the world.
|
Posted Sunday, March 02, 2008 6:28 AM By KaraLynn
Elizabeth, do you have CREDIBLE PROOF of "all those priests who have sex outside marriage?" "and usually gay sex"? I want you to document it for me please. If not you're just parrotting what the media erroneously "reports".
|
Posted Sunday, March 02, 2008 7:42 AM By Mark F.
XRK9854 wrote, "Jesus loved and accepted ALL."
This is the chief mistake of the modern age - "Accept me as I am, Lord." If that's is right, then why did Jesus need to die on the cross?
I see signs outside of liberal churches where they proudly proclaim that "All are welcome." The increasingly bogus and irrelevant "National Cathedral" in Washington's slogan is that it's "A house of prayer for all people", as if this is something unique.
The orthodox Catholic Church does welcome all people in, and especially wants people whose lives are filled with sin to come in. We all are sinners. I was one of the worst ones imaginable. But the Church does not want us to stay sinners.
XRK, Jesus said to the woman taken in adultery "go and sin no more", (John 8:11). He welcomed sinners like tax collectors and someone who perhaps was a prostitute like Mary Magdalen, but these people didn't stay in their life of sin.
The next thought we hear out of the Do It My Way crowd is how hypocritical the Church is. They'll dredge up whatever scandal they want, and certainly the Church as an organization of men and women has and will always fall short. Not only does this thinking ignore the vast numbers of the faithful who are sincere in their repentance, but it's a false argument at its core.
People who are caught up in their own ego, and don't wish to change in order to please God will make up this false excuse about the Church's failings to cover up their own ego, their own agenda, and the fact that they don't want to live a life that is centered around God.
I've given up acting on my own same-sex attraction and have been blessed with many gifts since then. I chose to put God's will first, not mine. It's not as hard as you'd think either. He'll help you along the way.
Thank you Lord, Father, Son and Holy Spirit!
|
Posted Sunday, March 02, 2008 12:19 PM By Rupunzel
I do believe Seton Hospital has every right to deny anyone who does not meet their criteria for treatment, except, this must to be limited to individual who pay for all their treatment and care received at Seton. Once Seton accepts any individual who’s treatment and care is even partly paid for by a public intuition, they are no longer considered a private health care organization and are subject to all public laws that related to health care. This applies to every hospital Catholic or not.
The Catholic faith has not been harmless to humanity over its long history. Those who belong to this interpretation of the bible and Christianity should not forget what happened during the Spanish Inquisition, What horrific things that were done to Native Americans and others who did not bend to Catholicism and more recently priest and other church officials who sexually abused children. It does not take much intelligence to see how religion has been used to control society and individuals to gain power and wealth for the few within the religions hierarchy. It is no wonder why so may individuals have discarded the Catholic and other religions in recent years.
Every English version of the Bible is a translation from an old Arabic and completely subject to interpretation by individuals who are human. It seems to me those who are blind flowers of any religion are in need of something to direct them in life and many never seem to really know or understand who they really are. These individuals seem to be searching for answers to who they are, what is the meaning of their humanity and what is their purpose in life. Rather than discover the answer to these question within themselves, they allow an interpretation of religion to answer these questions. There is nothing wrong with this, serious problems occur when these religious individuals feel they must impost their morality and truths upon others in the society they all share.
Fear, ignorance and guilt have been used extensively to control the minds, emotions and actions of those who are Catholic and other variations of Christianity.
Fact is, humanity has not disappeared due to the perceived lack of morality of othe
|
Posted Sunday, March 02, 2008 3:13 PM By MonicaH
The law is the law, especially in California. You just can't pick and choose which laws you want to follow and which ones you don't, just like picking and choosing passages from the Bible to justify one own prejudices. Second of all, you need to invest in a current copy of the AP Stylebook if you even consider yourself a legitimate media publication. Charlene Hastings is legally considered female in the State of California, with all of the proper documentation and is due the same respect as anyone else you report on.
Referring to Ms. Hastings with male pronouns is not your choice because you disagree with her “choice.” If you had a sister who married a jerk, would you show her disrespect by using her maiden name because you didn’t like her choice? It violates a code of decency and the current edition of the AP Stylebook. By using male pronouns, you are showing a bigotry that would be the same as calling the current Pope a “Kraut,” or the last Pope a “Pollock.” I wouldn’t do that, so why would you? Shame on you for the hatred you seemed to enjoy displaying.
And, I challenge anyone to find ANY passage in the Bible that even comes close to saying people cannot change their sex, or that anyone shouldn't live as the opposite sex, or that Jesus disapproved of transgender people, referred to as "eunuchs" back then. (Here's a clue: Mathew 19. Another clue: "Gender identy" has nothing to do the "sexual orientation." Look up the definitions.)
|
Posted Sunday, March 02, 2008 4:04 PM By gravey
And we have a tie ladies and gentlemen of the blogoshere in the category of "The Most Ill-Informed, Patently Absurd Comment, Not Worthy of a Reasonable Response." Congratulations Repunzel and MonicaH!
|
Posted Sunday, March 02, 2008 6:02 PM By Zoe Brain
John Andersen wrote : "What are the numbers of people that have these conditions? Your sources?" // Please look at http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2007/10/ts-101.html - that gives the URLs to the Intersex Society of North America, UK Intersex Association, and Organisation Intersex International amongst other TS and IS resources. The definitive resource for calculating prevalence of TS is at http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/TSprevalence.html - in particular Olyslager, F. and Conway, L., “On the Calculation of the Prevalence of Transsexualism”, presented at the WPATH 20th International Symposium, Chicago, Illinois, September 6, 2007.
|
Posted Sunday, March 02, 2008 6:18 PM By Grisha
Welcome back Zoe! ~ This time try and keep the scientific info as simple as possible. You may be a rocket scientist, but I'm not :-)
|
Posted Sunday, March 02, 2008 6:43 PM By Shauna
MonicaH has hit the nail on the head. We are as God made us, and anyone who says that this is a choice is woefully uninformed.
God made me transgendered for reason - one that will be fulfilled in good time.
Those who cry, "God doesn't make mistakes" and other such comments are instillingl hatred and & bigotry. They are placing their own prejudices ahead of God's plan.
I am sure that Caiaphas and the other Pharisees from Jesus' day would applaud those who claim to be "following the law" in condemming the transgendered community to the fires of hell.
Oh, wait... Didn't Jesus tell the scribes and pharisees to listen to God's word instead of applying their own prejudices?
|
Posted Sunday, March 02, 2008 7:03 PM By John L. Sillasen
Thankyou, Joan. What you are saying confirms the argument that science is probability and theory, and does not have the authority to generate absolute truths. Thankyou, you may leave the stand and take your seat now. Next witness take the stand please.
|
Posted Sunday, March 02, 2008 7:09 PM By John L. Sillasen
Sorry to brief you on this, MonicaH, but law in this state or any other or the federal law is indeed a cafeteria wingding: That's what judges and lawyers do. There is a move afoot to replace state laws with federal laws ... There used to be a Tenth Amendment, the states' rights amendment to the Bill of Rights ... It's gone, along with some others such as, I think it's the fourth, on eminent domain ... the Fifth is under fire presently as a jounalist is in the cooler under contempt of court for not revealing her sources ... well maybe this is the Second, or both ... and the third, is it, that prohibits the govt from billeting soldiers in your home ... well they just take you money and build one somewhere else ... what's the difference?
|
Posted Sunday, March 02, 2008 7:27 PM By Elisabeth
KaraLynn,
Are you serious? OK. I guess alot depends on what you will accept as a "credible source". I spent a few minutes on that new fangled thing called "google", and amazingly it turns up such results all these incredulous sources. I'll indulge you with a few:
Catholic World News, "The Gay Priest Problem" http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=20565
PBS, Religion & Ethics, "Gay Priests"
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week531/feature.html
Washington Post, "Bishop says edict will allow some gay priests" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/29/AR2005112901852.html
My point isn't to say that all priests are gay, nor to say that that's wrong. It is to say that it's pretty hypocritical to sling homophobic hate when there's plenty of it among the rank and file.
|
Posted Sunday, March 02, 2008 8:13 PM By Zoe Brain
@Grisha - Thanks. I'll try. The simple version - Intersexed people have bodies neither wholly male nor wholly female. The bits that are misgendered may be any one, or any combination, of the sexually dimorphic organs. "Sexually Dimorphic" meaning "there are two varieties, one male, one female". The brain is a sexually dimorphic organ. Transsexual people have male brains (and hence minds) in female bodies, or female brains (and hence minds) in male ones. The complexity arises because there are shades of grey - for example, genitalia can be somewhat male, or somewhat female, or really ambiguous. Worse, in some (fortunately rare) Intersex conditions, although the genes don't change, appearance can change giving an apparent natural "sex change" (usually partial). Far more common are Transsexual people having medically-induced changes to make their bodies more consistent.// The basic problem though is given by the headline - "Moral Victory against Catholics". This should never have happened, and it gives the ignorant and bigoted an excuse to bash the Church, unfairly and unjustly. It is no victory at all, merely the partial rectification of an understandable mistake. The problem still exists, and this is a band-aid, not a cure. When the Church - or misguided elements within it - screws up due to ignorance or faulty exegesis, it makes everyone look bad, and that's why I want to make sure people are better informed.
|
Posted Sunday, March 02, 2008 8:37 PM By RR
Mark F. : You are the proof that homosexuality is a choice. I'm very happy that you have found and excepted the truth and are living by God's will. Some day you will be rewarded for choosing what is right. Sounds like you already have been rewarded here on Earth. I'll remember you in my prayers tonight.
|
Posted Sunday, March 02, 2008 9:15 PM By John L. Sillasen
Google, "new fangled thing". Hmn. But in reply to Shauna, why is it that all homosexuals and their allies see all those who don't approve of what they say as bigoted and hateful, and of course not to leave out that only homosexual activists and trans this and thats have the true word of God and live the love of God every moment ... and that those who follow the teachings of the Church as handed down by the apostles are spiteful, filled with hate, and do nothing but abuse boys and live secret homosexual lives, as well as exhonerate murderers? I guess it's just one religion against another, where one accuses the other of hate regardless of whether it is or not or whether it is specific people or a vague idea, and the other which defines Herself as an institution created by Jesus Christ and who claims it loves sinners and wants them to become saints, and offers them all Her resources to do so, including Her blood and the Blood of Her Bridegroom, Jesus? I wonder when the homosexual church of god began, and who founded it, and what it takes to become a member, and the benefits both in this life and in the next.
|
Posted Sunday, March 02, 2008 10:15 PM By Thomas M.
All Roman Catholic Hospitals, schools and universties should close for one month and see what the JACKASS courts have to say about that!!!!! The church is in the drivers seat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
Posted Sunday, March 02, 2008 11:05 PM By xrk9854
Mark F:
Judge not lest ye be judged.
Let he that is without sin cast the first stone.
What so ever you do to the least of my people, that you do onto me...
What you are doing goes against those basic Christian principles. Prejudice, discrimination and ignorance hiding behind a religious facade and nothing more.
|
Posted Sunday, March 02, 2008 11:12 PM By xrk9854
John L. Sillasen: You show you're ignorance John. Transsexualism has NOTHING to do with homosexuality. Transsexualism is a gender issue arising from a birth condition. Homosexuality is an issue of sexual orientation. Sex and gender are two separate concepts.
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/TS.html
|
Posted Sunday, March 02, 2008 11:56 PM By Elisabeth
John L. Sillasen, You wouldn't happen to bear any relation to the character named "Silas", from the "Da Vinci Code?"
|
Posted Monday, March 03, 2008 12:29 AM By Elisabeth
John L. Sillasen, You wouldn't happen to bear any relation to the character named "Silas", from the "Da Vinci Code?"
|
Posted Monday, March 03, 2008 6:48 AM By John L. Sillasen
Elisabeth, nope. That book was not worth giving the time of day ... FYI, the root "silas" has to do with food; the root, "silla" has to do with chair. As you can now see, the character "Silas" in that yarn is worldly; whereas, "Silla" can be found in phrases such as "Sancta Silla", aka the Throne of Peter (Holy Chair, papal throne), and thus denotes otherworldliness. Now on to "alphanumeric slurry": Ignorance of evil is preferred over indulgence in sin. But to show you who is the ignorant one here: The sin of adultry is not the only grave issue in transgenderism; consider the sin of pride, ie placing anything above God. What is the purpose of altering the sex parts of the body if not vanity?
|
Posted Monday, March 03, 2008 8:32 AM By Ellen
Catholics, including Catholic hospitals, are to be light and salt. If Catholic hospitals do not stand on firm moral footing, they will not be helping all of their patients. They will assist in leading them and the culture into moral oblivion. If Catholic institutions do not hold the line on the culture's slide into chaos, who will there be to hold it?
|
Posted Monday, March 03, 2008 8:37 AM By Peter
Rant and Rave (RR): Mark F. proves nothing except that the "F" stands for "Fraud".
And, simone_dubois: It seems that Seton Hospital was indeed a witness to the world after all; that discrimination regardless of the justification will not be tolerated. As the article states: "Hastings got civil rights to trump religious beliefs.” Bravo to that, and that the lawsuit for monetary damages is going forward . . . seems that monetary damages is the only thing that can "enlighten" church these days.
|
Posted Monday, March 03, 2008 8:38 AM By Peter
Thomas M.: I say, let's close them permanently and start focusing on good medicine.
|
Posted Monday, March 03, 2008 9:15 AM By Fr. M.P.
Grisha, google for "Vatican denounces transsexuals" and "Vatican Says Sex Change Operation" you will find references. This false dichotomy of what a person "feels like" (regarding their sex) compared to their physical body (DNA) is one of the excuses to justify the immoral transsexual activity. Just like "gay rights" was the linchpin of the homosexual marketing campaign to "restructure consciences." The Bible says infallibly "male and female He created them." Body mutilation and unnatural hormone treatments (along with makeup and hairdos) do not convert a male into a female (or vice versa) . Their DNA remains the same as God created the person. And xrk9854, transsexuals are related to homosexuality in that any transsexual who (purportedly) "gets married" is a homosexual union because the man-made external appearance change does not change the actual person's sex. The whole idea of gender being independent of sex was started in the 50's by Dr. John Money of Johns Hopkins University, who coined the term "gender identity" to describe a person's inner sense of himself or herself as male or female. So true Catholics will obey the Magisterium and reject this transsexual sin, as well as fight against its promulgation in the public square.
|
Posted Monday, March 03, 2008 10:57 AM By Grisha
Fr. MP ~ Thank you for the citations. Question ~ What is the pastoral answer to a fallen away Catholic who has had a sex change operation , perhaps may years ago, and comes to a priest asking to return to practicing the faith. A reversal operation just doesn't seem reasonable. Chastity? What else?
|
Posted Monday, March 03, 2008 11:34 AM By RR
Dear Peter: Why do you continue to insist on making up words for initials of people who post here? It is so childish. If you don't have anything better or of substance to say then I'd suggest you go to the neareast pre-school because they can use you to help the kids learn there letter sounds and words they stand for. Mark F. is proof that it is a choice and of your own free will that you are gay. Mark F. finally realized the sinful life he was choosing was wrong and decided to do what is the will of God. Use Mark F. as an example that you can change your life for the better and that you have free will to do what is wrong or right. Also, if you are willing to put forth the effort and choose to do the will of God you would be a much more happier person.
Love, RR(Rant & Rave)
|
Posted Monday, March 03, 2008 8:08 PM By Zoe Brain
Fr MP - would a union between a self-identified lesbian transsexual woman and another lesbian woman who isn't transsexual be homosexual? What about if it was later found out from gene analysis that the transsexual woman was in fact intersexed? For that matter, what about people who are neither 46xx (F) nor 46xy (M) but 47xxy? Or 46xy but with a defective Sry complex meaning they can bear children? // One area of the Vatican's position I agree with totally is that a so-called "sex change operation" doesn't change sex at all. It merely partly remedies an inconsistency between one part of the body - the brain - and another part - the genitalia. The evidence is that Transsexuality is an Intersex condition, and I am confident that the Vatican will eventually recognise it as such. I'll quote from the AP article about the Vatican's Secret Document on the subject : // The Vatican distinguished transsexuals from "intersexed" people - those born with gender-ambiguous genitalia or internal organs. //The evidence is now conclusive that the brain - an internal organ - of transsexual people is "gender-ambiguous" or actually cross-gendered. More evidence is coming in all the time from functional MRI scans on this.// Thus a transsexual woman is a woman regardless of whether she has had surgery or not, and regardless of her current genital configuration. I believe that you think that genitalia is the sole determiner of sex, do you not? But if so, how does that square with the Vatican's position that changing genitalia can't change sex?
|
Posted Monday, March 03, 2008 8:16 PM By Professor
Dear Fr M.P. You are incorrect. DNA does NOT represent true sex. There are people who have XY chromosomes who are female, and people who have XX chromosomes who are male. The external morhphology is more relevant. Thus
a post-op transsexual woman is no more a male after SRS than is an XY female, and a post-operative transsexual woman's marriage to a man is NOT homosexual. Chromosomes as so-called true sex, was debated very extensively in 1977, when the US Tennis Association
tried to prevent Renee Richards from competing as a woman, because she had XY chromosomes. However, the science and medical facts, even then, led to the correct conclusion that "according to overwhelming medical evidence, this person is now female" and that "most of the medical testimony indicates that she is a woman, not in the sense that she gives birth, but socially and physically. She can't test out as a woman in all aspects, but she is a woman". Even the International Olympic Committee has stopped DNA testing, because they realize that it is not
THE test of so-called true sex. It is rightly suggested in the arguments with the OIC, that true sex may is unlikely ever to be discerned by a lab test. Just because some other courts and McHugh's (and friends) influence on policies don't understand this, doesn't invalidate the facts of science and medicine.
P.S.-Science is now starting to be able to change a person's chromosomes. The present state is that it doesn't change all the cells, but it DOES change alot of them. But, as I said, this is irrelevant, since DNA is not a test for so-called true sex.
|
Posted Monday, March 03, 2008 9:38 PM By Not Lazy Like You
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- After years of study, the Vatican's doctrinal congregation has sent church leaders a confidential document concluding that "sex-change" procedures do not change a person's gender in the eyes of the church.
Consequently, the document instructs bishops never to alter the sex listed in parish baptismal records and says Catholics who have undergone "sex-change" procedures are not eligible to marry, be ordained to the priesthood or enter religious life, according to a source familiar with the text.
The document was completed in 2000 and sent "sub secretum" (under secrecy) to the papal representatives in each country to provide guidance on a case-by-case basis to bishops. But when it became clear that many bishops were still unaware of its existence, in 2002 the
congregation sent it to the presidents of bishops' conferences as well.
"The key point is that the (transsexual) surgical operation is so superficial and external that it does not change the personality. If the person was male, he remains male. If she was female, she remains female," said the source.
|
Posted Monday, March 03, 2008 10:46 PM By Professor
Dear Not Lazy Like You,
My response to Fr. M.P. would apply equally to your posts. The misconception of chromosomes being the ultimate criterion for so called true sex, is not very new to the Catholic church. In fact, I pointed out this error over 20 years ago to Andrew J. Varga, a Catholic bioethist, who agreed, and stated he would change that in his book if it came to another print. Varga stated about transsexuals, "the chromosomal sex is not changed. It is all in their minds that their sex has changed. They are living in a dreamworld, which can hardly be called a good psychological adjustment to reality". But, even he admitted he needed to change this, if his book came to another edition. But, in regards to the Vatican document, also note that gender and sex is not synonymous. The female personality of a m to f transsexual is not changed by surgery due to the femaleness of neural
anatomy and phsyiology). But chromosomes are not the ultimate decider. In fact, I don't think we could have a marriage between XX males and XY males or XX women and XY women simply because their "genetically opposite"
Of course, those (like the Vatican document which you cite) who like to use chromosomal sex as the decider of so-called true sex, would not circumvent the problem of an XY post op transsexual morphologically woman from marrying an XX male. .That they would see "in their eyes" that the transsexual was the husband and that the XX male was
the bride (based upon their view of DNA sex as decider), would demonstrate how further flawed their understanding of this is.
|
Posted Monday, March 03, 2008 10:55 PM By Professor
Catholic bioethicist, Andrew Varga's middle initial is C, not J
It is Andrew C. Varga
|
Posted Monday, March 03, 2008 11:29 PM By John L. Sillasen
The case for transgender has run aground on details which have no meaning other than being details. I'll use a metaphor used by Jesus. It is swatting gnats while ignoring camels ... or something like that. Sex is simply not required for a happy life. This question, as I've pointed out twice elsewhere, and which has been ignored ... in fact the Vatican document is being ignored. The problem is vanity, vanity as in the rejection of God and the exaltation of man. If somebody has a variety of genders, and is intersexed with two or three or six different configurations, then the solution is to follow Jesus' advice: If it causes one to sin, then get rid of it. Renounce whatever is causing the person to sin. Sin includes vanity such as altering various aspects of the body when it is not needed for correct physiological function. You swap out a kidney to keep someone alive. The sex change operations are for vain ambitions, and violate the Law of God. Just because it can be done does not make it good, nor does it justify conjuring up some sort of rationale. You start with God and you follow God, or you have no honest claim to communion with God. Same with make up on women ... if it's gaudy then it's vain, and vanity is a mortal sin, because it reflects dishonesty instead of God. We are meant to carry our Crosses, and not to hide them. If you hide your candle under a basket, then it has no value, and the act is deceitful and also slothful as it is a way of shirking the Cross, and dishonoring God.
|
Posted Monday, March 03, 2008 11:42 PM By John L. Sillasen
This argument is similar to some others pitting science against God. In one of them I got no response when I replied that the poster who claimed that earth is not the center of the universe does not really know where or if the universe has a center. And the other one was where the high tech poster defeated her own argument by admitting that science is a process and does not have the authority to make conclusions of absolute truth. When we discuss God, we are in the realm of absolute truth, and not in the domain of theory. Continuously in the age of science many facts are discovered, such as those posted above. But none of these facts has ever qualified to define absolute truth. The closest that science can get to absolute truth is to evidence that there is such a thing. God has given man the Law; He has shown man how to apply the Law. Science has no authority or standing to change the Law. God knows that new facts will continually be discovered; Jesus says in the Gospel that this is so -- but He says also that the Law will not change. There is no Scripture that validates sex changes ... in the early centuries of the Church one of Her teachers tried to change his anatomy for the purpose of reducing or eliminating his carnal desires, and then later recanted and repented of his error. To seek to change for vanity is even worse ... it makes a mockery out of God's offer of eternal life for those who follow Him, by the de facto statement that we do not have burdens to suffer.
|
Posted Tuesday, March 04, 2008 3:23 AM By xrk9854
John L. Sillasen: Transsexualism is NOT about sex. It is about IDENTITY. As Zoe Brain has clearly indicated lots of research proves that people are BORN transsexual. You arguments are only looking more and more desperate as scientists continue to prove what people born transsexual have always known: That it is a birth condition and that there is NO choice involved. And just like any other birth condition we have a right to fix it!
Fr MP: You are wrong. People born transsexual have been around since the dawn of time, in all cultures and societies. Some cultures, like the Native American ones, actually revered people born transsexual. Only the modern terminology is new, the people have always existed.
The actions of you conservatives is only contributing to the destruction of the Church. And this truly saddens me because I was not only born transsexual, I'm also Catholic. The Church needs to stop being a divisive force, clean up it's own act (clergy sex abuse scandals galore) and move to unite everyone under one tent. The Church's current crusade against people born transsexual has eery parallels to how the Romans treated early Christians. It's time to stop this divisive canabalism and work against the true evils of this world, like poverty, homelessness and starvation.
I hope it's not to late to implement a course correction. So many have already left the Church. So many churches have already closed. And this exodus will only continue if the Church continues on this path. Denounce me if you'd like, but the Church has sown the seeds of it's own destruction and has nobody but itself to blame.
|
Posted Tuesday, March 04, 2008 4:06 AM By Zoe Brain
@John L Sillarsen - thank you for your interesting views. I'm intrigued by your ideas on makeup, but wonder exactly who decides whether it's gaudy (and so sinful) or not (so not). I only wear it on special occasions anyway. // Your argument about (and I paraphrase) "if your eye offendeth thee, pluck it out" in relation to intersexuality seems also a little inconsistent. Surely this would be an argument *for* genital reconstruction surgery, in cases where the body configuration is ambiguous or inconsistent? I had such surgery in order to get rid of a cancer risk, but also to give me a normal physiological functionality for the first time in my life. // I have to admit that I find advice by those who don't have a cross of their own to others who do to basically "suck it up and stop complaining" to be less than charitable. It smacks of arrogance, the sin of Pride. The kind of thing a Priest or Pharisee might say to a traveller left naked and bleeding by the side of the road. I prefer the Samaritan's view. But then, that's me, and I have no direct line to the Almighty telling me how to interpret His will.
|
Posted Tuesday, March 04, 2008 4:21 AM By Zoe Brain
@Professor - I am personally and closely acquainted with a couple in exactly the situation you describe. She is a post-operative transsexual woman with xy chromsomes, he is a post-operative transsexual man with (mostly) xx ones. They're not talking about marriage yet though. There are certain legal hurdles - she was born in a jurisdiction where changing birth certificates is difficult, while he had his corrected some time ago. Both come from catholic families - his has disowned him, hers is just confused. They love each other, and their cross is that they can never have children.
|
Posted Tuesday, March 04, 2008 8:24 AM By Fr. M.P.
Professor, you bring up those with genetic abnormalities as an excuse for a false dichotomy of gender vs. sex. First of all, most transsexuals - a high-income modern malady since poor people cannot afford the expenses for body mutilation, nor was it technically possible for thousands of years - have normal DNA. It is a free-will choice - a choice of sin - to fool people, including one's self - as to one's true sex. Oh yes, you can change the appearance to some degree, but the inherent DNA remains. For some other scientific analysis of this topic, google for "Surgical Sex" by Paul McHugh. We can see this is the camel's nose under the tent, which will be used as an excuse for all these sexual sins. If one can justify one's "feelings about oneself" as the "truth", then anything goes. I can just hear Obi-Wan say "ignore reality and use your feelings, Luke."
|
Posted Tuesday, March 04, 2008 10:29 AM By Fr. M.P.
xrk9854, sorry but God is right and you are in error. Male and female He created them. You only repeat the excuses "God made me that way" to justify sinful behavior (as do many homosexuals). Check your Bible and you will find in Matthew 10:34-36 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword. For I have come to set a man 'against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one's enemies will be those of his household.'" What does that mean? Those who love themselves over God and want to do what they feel like will be against the true followers of God who obey His commandments. It is your sins that cause the division. God is unity. Sin is disunity - division. And those sexual sinning types of transsexual and homosexual are following the tyrannical nazi mentality of so-called hate crime legislation. The tyranny of relativism. Our Lady of Fatima in 1917 said that most people go to hell for the sins of the flesh. Here we have ample evidence. And Zoe, you have God's Church as the direct line to God, knowing that what the Church teaches is what Jesus teaches. Do what the Church teaches and you will be saved.
|
Posted Tuesday, March 04, 2008 12:07 PM By Thomas
what does the esteemed Bishop have to say?
nothing in the name of 'don't stir the power that be'
|
Posted Tuesday, March 04, 2008 1:57 PM By Professor
Dear Fr. M.P. I have read, the article by McHugh, and that is what I meant in my earlier post that him, his friends and their influence on church policy, is not correct and also is not scientific. Again, you have chosen to believe a falsehood, and that is, that DNA indicates so-called true sex. That is why I bring up atypical cases, because they show this clearly. A transsexual fools neither one's self or others in regards to their sex, simply because DNA, even normal DNA is NOT the ultimate criteria of true sex. As I have mentioned before, there are born women who have only inherent male DNA and vise versa. Envronmental factors causes them to develop an appearance/morphology which is of the sex, which is just not what is in MOST cases USUALLY in accord with DNA. They are like post-operative transsexuals. They are just infertile, just as are transsexuals after surgery, and may be the same physically just as transsexuals after surgery.
|
Posted Tuesday, March 04, 2008 3:52 PM By Maria C
Professor so are you saying that you are better than God with your human understandings? Jesus is our Lord and Savior and if His church say's it is not right, then so be it.
|
Posted Tuesday, March 04, 2008 4:29 PM By John L. Sillasen
Zoe, I figured you'd use the verse to support your motive. It is a very physical verse on the surface, and easier to deal with than the more abstract "vanity". The issue is vanity. On the point of identity, one needs to identify with Christ and not with one's body. Seek first the Kingdom of God (aka, Jesus Christ), and all things shall then follow.
|
Posted Tuesday, March 04, 2008 4:44 PM By Zoe Brain
@Maria C - The Professor is not saying his human understanding is better than God's. He's saying that his human understanding is better than Dr McHugh's human understanding. As I view it, he's saying that the Holy Catholic Church has been known to make scientific mistakes in the past, will no doubt do so in the future, and that in this case, they are in increasingly blatant scientific error. The current Vatican doctrine, being based on a flawed understanding of the situation, is therefore dubious at best, and in his (and my) opinion, unsound. // There have been many cases in the past where not only has the Church made such errors, it has admitted to them and corrected them after due consideration and re-evaluation. The Church may be God's, but it is composed of fallible mortal men, and only His Holiness, and only when speaking Ex Cathedra, is infallible. The Doctrinal Congregation is not - though they have a pretty good track record. We have a duty to obey Church teachings, even if we feel them to be in error, but we also have the duty to point out those errors and not be silent unless instructed to be. Such a duty becomes all the stronger when it leads us to act unCharitably, and thus against Christ's teachings. // Fr M.P. - what does xrk9854's position have to do with homosexuality? As for the church being a direct line to God, I thought that we had to have fallible, human priests as intermediaries. Those who would guide us in our understanding - but only be more reliable than ourselves, not infallible. I'm sure you make no claim to perfection! The Church's teachings have changed in their detail over time, while remaining constant in their basis, have they not?
|
Posted Tuesday, March 04, 2008 7:25 PM By John L. Sillasen
Zoe, it is Christ Who lives in His Church which provides the infallibility. We have the capability to perceive truth. But in order to do so, we must be humble and not vain. The Vatican decision deals with the vanity of the topic ... is this something you wish to avoid? Also, I'm curious as to what scientific errors the Church has made in the past. Can you rattle some of these off? (Please don't waste time and space by bringing up the issue of earth/sun relationships, as Einstein showed that any point can be a center ... relativity being the paradigm.)
|
Posted Tuesday, March 04, 2008 10:41 PM By Zoe Brain
@John L. Sillasen - Scientific errors - let's see, blood circulation theory, germ theory of disease, the moons of Jupiter, those immediately come to mind. Criticising the Church in those areas is often unfair, as usually the erroneous doctrinal statements pre-dated formulation of the theories in question. // As regards vanity, I don't see how a transsexual woman getting breast augmentation is vanity, but a non-transsexual woman getting the same surgery is not. Remember, that was the point here. The hospital ruled that the latter was perfectly OK, while the former was forbidden. Your "vanity" argument seems inconsistent with their view, and hence, presumably, the official Church line. // It seems to me that on one side, we have people asking practical questions, and showing how various doctrines cause lack of charity. On the other side, we have airy-fairy quotations of theological precepts which, worthy as they are, don't actually help very much in practical cases. Is correction of a hare lip "vanity" for the sake of personal pride, correction of a physiological problem, or a method of ensuring the patient doesn't suffer societal persecution as a freak and monster? What about surgery for Intersexed people who just want to have a normal life? What about Transsexual people in the same situation? What is the Church's actual position on these issues, and why was it necessary for some parts to be "sub secretum"? The worthy principles you espouse, ones I agree with, don't seem to be very useful here, as there are equally worthy principles that would give opposite answers to these questions.
|
Posted Wednesday, March 05, 2008 3:48 AM By Lloyd Flack
John Sillasen, you are twisting General Relativity. As far as we know the Universe does not have a center. The Galaxy does. The Solar System does. Neither of these centers is inside Earth. Both the Galaxy and the Solar System rotate and not around Earth.
Science (except perhaps Mathematics) does not offer absolute certainty. So what! It can provide certainty beyond reasonable doubt on a lot of things. Some uncertainties are negligible. And when they are not, perhaps we should live with uncertainty, at least for now.
What is your position on cosmetic surgery? Do you oppose surgery to correct disfigurements? Do you oppose surgery not to correct disfigurements but to make what are percieved as improvements?
|
Posted Wednesday, March 05, 2008 6:54 AM By John L. Sillasen
Zoe, I was hoping that your examples would include enough information so that I could verify that it was the Church Who taught them, instead of the absurd Gallileo event in which both contenders were off base. In that case, even though the level of contention was serious, the Church had not included Her opinion in the Magisterium as far as I understand. What erroneous doctrinal statements? Both case examples for breast augmentation are vain and sinful. The objective is to love God through one another, not to change the focus = ) Correction of hairlip is obviously not vanity. Hey, sometimes it is necessary to show the world how to carry one's Cross ... our lives are not purposed here primarily for comfort but for the glory of God. To disguise reality is deceit ... breast augmentation is not corrective surgery. Your argumentation is worthy in my opinion, as you honestly ask why the Church has not issued a doctrine on your topic. Several doctrines have been stated on this thread; yet, evidently you do not agree with their applicability. But, I concur with you that it should be clear. A "parallel" case is porn: The Church has pronounced against porn; the question, then, becomes its definition. I'm sure you recall the "immortally funny" Supreme Court opinion on defining pornography, "You know it when you see it". The same difficulty in defining the issue would be here also in this present issue ... ie, when is it and when is it not sin? Fixing a hairlip, and I see many of them in kids, is one thing, and breast augmentation is another ... to me the difference is clear. But I can see why some of your points are not clear. Hopefully somebody will be able to provide what we are looking for. My approach will continue to be that the principal problem is vanity ... that one's identity needs to be based in Jesus Christ and not in the world of opinions.
|
Posted Wednesday, March 05, 2008 7:34 AM By xrk9854
The Church has made many mistakes in the past, a few listed by Zoe. The Church has also been glacial in admitting mistakes. They apologized for putting Galileo under house arrest more than 500 years after he was dead! Just like all these other instances, the Church is wrong about transsexuality. The Church is led by men and men make mistakes. And will continue to make mistakes in the future. There is a saying that goes: "The only constant in life is change." Even the Church must change or it will fade into oblivion.
And why to you yahoos keep harping on about chromosomes and DNA. Can you not read? It has been scientifically proven that there are females who are XY and there are males who are XX. There are actually millions of people who have some form of intersex. Millions! That's why the Olympic Games do not even test DNA anymore. Are you listening! You argument about DNA is flawed!
I find it particularly gauling all you people who purport to speak for God. May I ask when you last physically spoke to him? The point is you haven't. You only put your own twisted interpretation on words written down by.... other men.
Admit it YOU ARE WRONG!!!!!!!!!
It dosen't matter how many times you repeat your lies, they are still lies.
YOU ARE WRONG. YOU ARE DESTROYING THE CHURCH AND WILL HAVE TO ANSWER FOR THAT WHEN THE TIME COMES.
Shame on all you that are blinded by HUMAN dogma.
|
Posted Wednesday, March 05, 2008 12:52 PM By John L. Sillasen
xrk9854 (obviously aka "the torquemada of the internet), not all of the posts on this thread are dealing with dna or chromosomes. You seem to have a dim view of men and mankind in general, except for homosexuals and transgenders and surgically "updated" reassignment cases.
|
Posted Wednesday, March 05, 2008 1:04 PM By John L. Sillasen
Lloyd Flack, I admit to spinning but not so much twisting the theory of relativity. I was working up the concept of infinity, and not finite matters. Absolute truth is what Catholicism is about, and that is what I have been trying to convey. There are scientific technicalities which reveal many interesting and useful facts, which lead to many good technologies ... no doubt about it. But when putting a technology into the perspective of absolute truth, then we need to deal with divine revelation. On cosmetic surgery, I am not opposed to it absolutely; intent would be the essential decision point. If the intent is vain, then that would be the purpose, which would be a sin. But if the intent is something that is not vanity, then it might be a good thing. Theologically, the whole argument is moving towards the nature of personality. What is it and how should it be valued?
|
Posted Wednesday, March 05, 2008 2:43 PM By Zoe Brain
@John L Sillasen - we seem to be no longer talking past each other, and your latest post is something I can agree with without the smallest cavill. I feel it's up to me to show that sex reassignment surgery is *not* mere vanity in order to answer you. First, I ask you to look at the Standards of Care (SOC), put out by the World Professional Association of Transgender Health (WPATH). All serious medical conditions have such a SOC, giving the consensus medical position on how best to treat the problem. The SOC specifically and unequivocally states that SRS is the most appropriate treatment in serious cases. It's not experimental, or optional, it's *necessary*. But the WPATH is composed of humans, and they can be wrong. So I'll adduce the second fact, which I think is unanswerable. 50% of people who don't manage to get SRS die because of that. Third, the Gender Dysphoria caused by Transsexuality can't be cured by analysis, or therapy, or anti-depressants, only by hormones. The misgendered brain requires the right hormonal mix to function, and in many cases, in sufficient doses to cause gross changes of appearance. The life of such women, who look female, who are feminine in mind and body, but who have the wrong shaped genitalia is better than before treatment, but they are still pariahs, and feel terribly disfigured. They just want normality. Not beauty, just not to be persecuted, in constant danger of arrest, and all too often rape and murder, sometimes at the hands of the authorities. Their Utopian quest is *not* to stand out, *not* to puff themselves up with pride, just to blend in and be un-noticed. To this end, they sometimes need facial surgery, and breast augmentation. In my case, much as I'd like both to look completely normal, I can get by without them, and to me they would be Vanity. I look very plain, but not masculine. Others need them to avoid persecution, usually by those calling themselves "Christians".
|
Posted Wednesday, March 05, 2008 8:10 PM By John L. Sillasen
Zoe, I think you're saying that the problem includes personality. Personality can be dealt with from various approaches. Here is my present view; see the end of my post for an approach to further illumination. God wants each person to follow His commandments. If some aspect of a person prevents that person from doing so, then Jesus says to renounce it. This does not mean to literally "cut it off" or "pluck it out", as one of the early Church Fathers sought to do before he realized his error. If Church tradition has demonstrated that people who have no atypical aspects to their being can renounce sex and live lives of celibacy, then why is it not an option for those in the categories you are concerned with? +++++ Also, I'm interested to know what the Church has taught on this issue. Two doctrines touching on it were posted by Mr. Zehnder, as I recall. I'd also like to see the "thought process" or development of the doctrines and their hierarchical status ... and whether the Church is continuing to explore this issue.
|
Posted Wednesday, March 05, 2008 9:23 PM By Zoe Brain
@John L Sillasen - many TS people *do* live out lives of celibacy after surgery. We again meet the common misconception of conflating gender and sex. Sex is about who you want to go to bed *with*, Gender is about who you want to go to bed *as*, and alone if necessary. It often is for post-operative TS people. The 1 in 5 risk of becoming sexually dysfunctional is something they are willing to take, and some 40% are celibate post-op, usually because of difficulty in finding anyone who will accept them. The figure for those who transition later in life and who are not already in a stable relationship pre-op is more like 80%. They know this, it's one of the requirements before surgery can be authorised that they realise the likely consequences. I confess it can be a little galling to be told that one is doing this for some sort of sexual gratification under those circumstances. I know it's just misunderstanding by people of goodwill speaking out of pardonable ignorance, yet still it's irritating! One must retain one's sense of humour under the circumstances, and say along with Puck "Lord, what fools these mortals be!".// Then of course there are the TS women who continue to be attracted to other females, both pre- and post-op. To be told that they're actually homosexual men when they find the idea of sex with men utterly repulsive is also annoying to them, as well as wholly illogical. Yet Church teaching is that their overtly Lesbian relationships are actually hetero ones! These are not rare exceptions, about a third of late transitioning women are Lesbian.
|
Posted Wednesday, March 05, 2008 10:32 PM By Paula
My interpretation of the teachings of Christ is that we should all seek to live good and decent lives, relating well to our fellows. My further interpretation is that I should not discriminate against anyone as we are all God’s children. Those with gender identity issues find it impossible to live a normal life until their condition is treated. Alas the appropriate area of the brain cannot (and should not) be adjusted to match the physical sex and the only option for those that choose it is corrective genital surgery. The scientific evidence continues to mount that gender identity disorder is a physical condition. According to the catholic church, it is acceptable to treat physical conditions but not those with gender identity disorder and that it is God’s will that these people should suffer. It is my view that a treated transsexual, living a good a decent life, relating well to his/her fellows, will enter the Kingdom of Heaven before any religious types that preach discrimination. The catholic church has lost its way and should adopt more Christian principles and not claim to speak for God.
|
Posted Thursday, March 06, 2008 7:38 AM By Tony
A prime example of what happens when the Church puts a higher priority on "social-work" rather than "soul-work".
|
Posted Thursday, March 06, 2008 9:12 AM By Fr. M.P.
Zoe, following the Church teachings is the way to eternal life. V2 Lumen Gentium says: "the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. ... which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with." The nice thing about the internet is that you can double-check anything I say with Church teachings. Don't try and make an excuse that because I am not infallible that you can ignore Church teachings and do what you want. Check out the Church's teachings and know the truth. xrk9854 likes to claim "God made me that way," and many people who choose the sin - it IS a sin - of homosexuality use the same invalid excuse. Also, read Galileo was Wrong for some facts on that case. No Zoe, the faith and moral teachings of the Church have NOT changed over time. Certain disciplines, like not eating meat on Friday, have changed, but that is not faith and morals. Stick with the Church, rather than personal opinions, and don't be "Adam-and-Eve'd" - 'ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.' (Genesis 3:5)
|
Posted Thursday, March 06, 2008 3:36 PM By Professor
The church is all who are believers. It is not the Catholic Church or any other corporate church. In fact, some say that all the churches are under judgement, and that we should all leave the churches. (Example Harold Camping. While some say Harold Camping is a cult, others also say the RC church is a cult. But, we can't add or subtract from the Scriptures. (Rev. 22:18). The apocrypha doesn't belong there. Church teaching is worth nothing when it falls so far away from Scripture. P.S. transsexualism has nothing to do with homosexuality. DNA is NOT what decides true sex.
I wish someone would look up phenotypic sex.
|
Posted Thursday, March 06, 2008 4:06 PM By John L. Sillasen
Paula, we are not "all God's children". Some are and some are not, according to Jesus. If you hold a religion other than the one Jesus gave us, why don't you be up front about it and honestly say so? Some choose Christ; some do not: To believe otherwise is to believe we have no freedom of choice in our nature; and, worse, it is to deny the reality of Christ.
|
Posted Thursday, March 06, 2008 4:52 PM By Michele
I don't understand what all the trouble is. After a male to female sex change operation, she has a uterus and ovaries
and the ovaries have the new DNA in it from the donor. The
woman is now like those fused twins they were talking about and have 2 sets of DNA. But the new DNA is in
the important area, her new reproductive organs. I don't know if she can have a baby, but the new woman gets her period. She is biologically a woman now.
What is the problem?
|
Posted Thursday, March 06, 2008 5:38 PM By gravey
Professor,
Here is an equation you need to learn for the final exam:
The Church of Jesus Christ = The Catholic Church.
|
Posted Thursday, March 06, 2008 5:47 PM By Michele
I had a Catholic priest tell me that in order to be a female, one needs to have the reproductive system transferred, so they have eggs, ovaries a uterus and get periods. I checked and in the following link for June 13, 2002, Cheryl Norvanski's
testimony indicates she has female reproductive organs and
gets her period. I wonder if she could get pregnant, and certainly the church would not interfere with this.
www.transfemme.com/testimonials1.html
|
Posted Thursday, March 06, 2008 6:44 PM By John L. Sillasen
Professor, the Roman Catholic Church is not a cult, yet contains numerous cults. The word, "cult", has many meanings to choose from. C'mon, Prof, the Apocropha is part of the Bible, which the protestants removed. Luther chose to ignore the Septuigent, but it is the Bible. On the confusion between trans sex and homo sex, this has pretty much been cleared up on this thread: The issue is whether to adhere to the Church's Magisterium, or make up your own gospel; the one exception is where Zoe Brain is trying to discover the actual nature of transsexuality ... it appears complex; yet, God's Commandments cover all creation. This point is where the argument is idling at the moment.
|
Posted Thursday, March 06, 2008 6:49 PM By John L. Sillasen
The Catholic Church includes various other Christian organization, such as the Orthodox and protestant churches; however, the reverse is not true. The pope is the head man, whether people believe it or not; he was put in charge by God, so no matter how many come up with whatever ideas, it will not change the fact. Note also that the Church is guaranteed by God, directly through St Peter. There have been many shepherds who have led, either by error or by intent, their flocks away from the guarantee.
|
Posted Thursday, March 06, 2008 9:52 PM By Professor
John L. Sillasen, You are incorrect. It was not Luther. In fact, Josephus and Jerome keenly demonstrated that they should not be considered canon. It seems it was not Luther, but the council of Trent's position which caused further problems. Don't blame it on Luther. In fact, the Septuigant
contained writings, such as the apocrypha, which clearly were not part of the Masoretic Text of the hebrew scholars.
|
Posted Friday, March 07, 2008 6:47 AM By John L. Sillasen
Professor, the Jews developed the Septuigent for their Greek speaking community in north Africa. It is cannonical according to the Church. Josephus was a Jew, I'm guessing who lived in the Holy Land or maybe Rome, and may have argued over the two text traditions. St Jerome was not a pope, and so was not the one given the authority by God to decide the cannonicity of the Alexandrian text. Everyone argues, including the great minds ... that is one reason Jesus gave us the papacy, to settle the issues.
|
Posted Friday, March 07, 2008 9:57 AM By Professor
John L Sillasen. You are not correct. Popes have changed their minds on this and many other things. The Scripture
(66 books) is what is given to us by Him and is divinely inspired. Also check the following for a better understanding.
http://members.aol.com/twarren13/apoc.html
|
Posted Friday, March 07, 2008 10:14 AM By Fr. M.P.
Professor, you certainly do not represent the Catholic faith. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church decided which books are in the Bible and which were not. To think otherwise is Protestant or modernist. The Council of Trent only repeated the Magisterium's decision of around the year 400. I would recommend the Book Where We Got the Bible. Why would you want a Bible based on Jews who never accepted Jesus Christ?
|
Posted Friday, March 07, 2008 12:08 PM By Professor
Dear Fr. M.P., I think we are going to need to just disagree on this apocrypha thing. I am sorry if this caused any trouble here. I will keep my posts to what is on-topic, discussions of gender and sexuality in the context here. Thanks again.
|
Posted Friday, March 07, 2008 12:19 PM By Professor
Dear Michele, post-operative m to f transsexuals do not menstruate. They do not have female reproductive organs as you state. Don't believe this fiction. The change is only in the external morphological sex and secondary sex characteristics.
|
Posted Friday, March 07, 2008 7:08 PM By John L. Sillasen
Two decades ago or so, the idea was published that since cows have also a nine month gestation period, then it could be possible to implant a human embryo in a cow's womb. Evidently there were technical difficulties, or we'd have heard more about the results. Somehow I wonder if this whole thing has something to do with worshiping the golden calf ... which is kind of like making up a fantasy creature and defining it according to obscure and confused ideas. Doesn't take much subtlety to produce a golden calf statue, but it does to make all these trans-trends "come to life".
|
Posted Wednesday, March 12, 2008 10:22 AM By KaraLynn
Elisabeth, you need to get it into your head that JUST because the Church disagrees with someone's CHOSEN lifestyle, it does NOT equate with hate. And I hardly regard the Washington Post as credible proof.
|
© California Catholic Daily 2008. All Rights Reserved.
|