Trandgender Navy Seal

[Ash Wednesday]

TRANSGENDER WAS PART OF THE TEAM THAT CAPTURED TEH BIN LADINZ butheyretiredbeforethatactuallyhappened.

[Clare Brigid]

There's a man who works at my local post office who is about 2/3 of the way finished with a sex change. It's still obvious he's a man. Last week I answered one of his questions, "Yes, ma'am" and felt it was wrong.

 

Curiosing, about 10 years ago, Cardinal Raymond Burke, when he was Archbishop of LaCrosse, WI, received the religious vows of Sr. Julie Green, who had founded an association of the faithful called Franciscan Servants of Jesus.  Sr. Julie Green is a transwoman, and this was known to Cardinal Burke.  He obtained permission from the Vatican before receiving her vows.

 

During the ensuing controversy, he stood fast.  He also referred to Sr. Julie by her female name.  He certainly did not call her Joel (her birth name).  He also referred to her with feminine pronouns.  An article describing the controversy, and quoting Cardinal Burke, is here:  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1200411/posts

 

I think Cardinal Burke is a good example to follow, don't you?  I don't think you have to worry about this issue at all.

[To Jesus Through Mary]

Curiosing, about 10 years ago, Cardinal Raymond Burke, when he was Archbishop of LaCrosse, WI, received the religious vows of Sr. Julie Green, who had founded an association of the faithful called Franciscan Servants of Jesus.  Sr. Julie Green is a transwoman, and this was known to Cardinal Burke.  He obtained permission from the Vatican before receiving her vows.

 

During the ensuing controversy, he stood fast.  He also referred to Sr. Julie by her female name.  He certainly did not call her Joel (her birth name).  He also referred to her with feminine pronouns.  An article describing the controversy, and quoting Cardinal Burke, is here:  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1200411/posts

 

I think Cardinal Burke is a good example to follow, don't you?  I don't think you have to worry about this issue at all.

 

Yeah I don't think I can buy that article. For one, if this actually happened there would be more then 2 articles written less then 2 years after the fact. Two, I can't find any trace of this community, news article nothing reference or anything- save the wiki article that said they were suppressed by Cardinal Burke in 2003 (a year after the article you are quoting- 2 years after the supposed vows). It seems more like a blog writer with an agenda.  

 

Even IF Cardinal Burke had done this, from the article you originally posted, persons who have gone through this type of operation are not eligible for religious life, marriage, or Holy Orders. Even as awesome as Cardinal Burke is, he couldn't go rouge and just do the vows. And I highly doubt he actually would do something like this.  

[Clare Brigid]

Yeah I don't think I can buy that article. For one, if this actually happened there would be more then 2 articles written less then 2 years after the fact. Two, I can't find any trace of this community, news article nothing reference or anything- save the wiki article that said they were suppressed by Cardinal Burke in 2003 (a year after the article you are quoting- 2 years after the supposed vows). It seems more like a blog writer with an agenda.  

 

Even IF Cardinal Burke had done this, from the article you originally posted, persons who have gone through this type of operation are not eligible for religious life, marriage, or Holy Orders. Even as amesome as Cardinal Burke is, he couldn't go rouge and just do the vows. And I highly doubt he actually would do something like this.  

 

It specifically says that he obtained permission from the Vatican beforehand.

 

So the account and even the quotes from Cardinal Burke are fabricated, in your opinion?    I think that is extremely unlikely.  In any case, I've seen references to this situation in other articles and on blogs, mostly from traditionalists who accuse Cardinal Burke of not being traditional enough.

 

Rather than make an accusation of fabrication -- which, by the way, is an extremely serious thing to do -- perhaps you might take it at face value and think about why Cardinal Burke acted as he did.

[To Jesus Through Mary]

Yes I think it is fabricated. I see no reliable siting when I search this morning. All I saw were blogs and opinion pieces that weren't even from credible sources. If I saw CNA post something about these vows, I might perk up and be less skeptical. Besides the dates as previously mentioned. 

 

Rather than make an accusation of fabrication -- which, by the way, is an extremely serious thing to do -- perhaps you might take it at face value and think about why Cardinal Burke acted as he did.

 

It's on the Internet, so it must be true. ;) 

[Amppax]

Are there any sources for this Vatican document about trans* besides the one NCR article?

[Clare Brigid]

Are there any sources for this Vatican document about trans* besides the one NCR article?

 

The NCR article is simply a republication of a January 2003 Catholic New Service report.  The Catholic News Service is an office of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
 

Did the USCCB fabricate this, too?  :hehe2:

[Amppax]

The NCR article is simply a republication of a January 2003 Catholic New Service report. The Catholic News Service is an office of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Did the USCCB fabricate this, too? :hehe2:

Wasn't saying anyone did. I simply don't trust the Reporter. I also did a search and couldn't find anything similar, except lots of reports saying that transsexuals are not to be allowed in religious orders per a statement from the CDF in 2003.

[Clare Brigid]

Wasn't saying anyone did. I simply don't trust the Reporter. I also did a search and couldn't find anything similar, except lots of reports saying that transsexuals are not to be allowed in religious orders per a statement from the CDF in 2003.

 

That 2003 CDF statement is the document summarized in the Catholic New Service report.

 

Actually, it was first issued several years earlier to the papal nuncios around the world.  In 2003, it was issued again to various bishops' conferences.

[Lil Red]

Yeah I don't think I can buy that article. For one, if this actually happened there would be more then 2 articles written less then 2 years after the fact. Two, I can't find any trace of this community, news article nothing reference or anything- save the wiki article that said they were suppressed by Cardinal Burke in 2003 (a year after the article you are quoting- 2 years after the supposed vows). It seems more like a blog writer with an agenda.  

 

Even IF Cardinal Burke had done this, from the article you originally posted, persons who have gone through this type of operation are not eligible for religious life, marriage, or Holy Orders. Even as amesome as Cardinal Burke is, he couldn't go rouge rogue and just do the vows. And I highly doubt he actually would do something like this.  

 

sorry. i agree with your point, but this is one of those spelling mistakes that drive me up a wall. :) 

[Amppax]

That 2003 CDF statement is the document summarized in the Catholic New Service report.

Actually, it was first issued several years earlier to the papal nuncios around the world. In 2003, it was issued again to various bishops' conferences.

Yeah found that out after I posted. Whoops, my bad.

[Socrates]

So-called "sex-change" or "gender reassignment" surgeries are a serious act of mutilation of the human body, and are therefore objectively wrong and sinful for any reason, whether related to homosexuality or not.

The only exception would be genuine cases of hermaphroditism, or physically ambiguous genitalia.

 

As taught in the Catechism: "Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reason, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law" (no. 2297)."

 

Here's an excellent article on the subject from Fr. William Saunders, a very knowledgeable and orthodox priest:  "Straight Answers: the Morality of 'Sex-change' Operations."

 

 

"Sex-change" operations do not and cannot actually change a man into a woman, or vise-versa.  They simply mutilate and destroy healthy body parts and replace them with non-functional cosmetic mutilations.

 

No transsexual surgery will ever be able to duplicate completely the anatomy or the functioning of the opposite sex. A male transsexual will never be able to ovulate or conceive; and a female transsexual will never be able to germinate sperm. Transsexuals will need to use synthetic hormones continuously to sustain their change, which in turn runs the risk of cancer.

 

To destroy organs purposefully that are healthy and functioning, and to try to create imitation organs which will never have the genuineness and functioning of authentic organs is gross and lacks charity. Such surgery which purposefully destroys the bodily integrity of the person must be condemned.

 

 

Another moral consideration is whether the condition of transsexualism justifies surgery. No biological cause of transsexualism has been identified. Rather, the cause appears to stem from psychological development, and thereby transsexualism should be treated with psychotherapy. Interestingly, even after surgery, transsexuals need at least some psychotherapeutic support.

Finally, a transsexual will never be able to enter validly into the sacrament of Matrimony. A man who undergoes sexual reassignment will never really be a woman, or vice versa; rather, a man will be a man (or a woman will be a woman), except with a mutilated body and profound psychological disordering. Moreover, a transsexual will never be able to consummate the marriage in the fullest expression of love of husband and wife, and never will there be a real openness to life and the creation of children.

 

 

 

A "man-to-woman transsexual" is no more an actual woman than the "tiger-man" (who is trying to surgically transform himself into a tiger, and claims to be a "tiger in a man's body" or some such nonsense - you can look him up on Youtube) is a real tiger.

 

Read another good article here.

 

 

I also find it interesting how many people who adamantly oppose any persons voluntarily undergoing any kind of psychological therapy to overcome SSA have no problem at all with people surgically mutilating themselves because they want to change their sex.

[Socrates]

Wasn't saying anyone did. I simply don't trust the Reporter. I also did a search and couldn't find anything similar, except lots of reports saying that transsexuals are not to be allowed in religious orders per a statement from the CDF in 2003.

 

The National Catholic Reporter is a fine source . . .

 

 

. . . of toilet paper.

[Socrates]

TRANSGENDER WAS PART OF THE TEAM THAT CAPTURED TEH BIN LADINZ butheyretiredbeforethatactuallyhappened.

 

But this proves that a man dressing up as a woman, getting breast implants, and surgically mutilating himself to look like a woman is MANLY.

 

 

 

(I wonder what old Dick Marcinko thinks of this.)

[Seven77]

The National Catholic Reporter is a fine source . . .

 

 

. . . of toilet paper.

 

Might need preparation h afterwards.

[Clare Brigid]

But this proves that a man dressing up as a woman, getting breast implants, and surgically mutilating himself to look like a woman is MANLY.

 

Well, thank you!  That's quite a compliment coming from a manly guy like you!

[Seven77]

Tiger-Man, Tiger-Man, Please rest in peace poor Tiger-Man.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking_Cat

 

 

[Gabriela]

So-called "sex-change" or "gender reassignment" surgeries are a serious act of mutilation of the human body, and are therefore objectively wrong and sinful for any reason, whether related to homosexuality or not.

The only exception would be genuine cases of hermaphroditism, or physically ambiguous genitalia.

 

As taught in the Catechism: "Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reason, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law" (no. 2297)."

 

Here's an excellent article on the subject from Fr. William Saunders, a very knowledgeable and orthodox priest:  "Straight Answers: the Morality of 'Sex-change' Operations."

 

 

"Sex-change" operations do not and cannot actually change a man into a woman, or vise-versa.  They simply mutilate and destroy healthy body parts and replace them with non-functional cosmetic mutilations.

 

 

 

 

 

A "man-to-woman transsexual" is no more an actual woman than the "tiger-man" (who is trying to surgically transform himself into a tiger, and claims to be a "tiger in a man's body" or some such nonsense - you can look him up on Youtube) is a real tiger.

 

Read another good article here.

 

 

I also find it interesting how many people who adamantly oppose any persons voluntarily undergoing any kind of psychological therapy to overcome SSA have no problem at all with people surgically mutilating themselves because they want to change their sex.

 

Thank you for the clarification and quotes, Socrates. Would it be wrong, then, to "play along" with such people and refer to them as their "new" sex rather than their God-given one (e.g., using "ma'am" or "sir" or "he" or "she")?

 

I assume that whatever you reply in response to this will apply equally to cross-dressing folk as to people who have undergone surgical changes.

Edited June 6, 2013 by curiousing

[photosynthesis]

As taught in the Catechism: "Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reason, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law" (no. 2297)."

 

I think where it becomes debatable is the "therapeutic reasons" part of this Catechism quote.  

 

As for therapy for homosexuals, I think that it can be a really good thing if the therapist is Catholic.  But a lot of studies have shown that "conversion" therapy is not effective.  I think that's because the goal is to make gay people straight.  This type of therapy also originated in the Protestant churches, where you are seen as defective if you don't get married...  there's no value placed on a life of celibacy.  If you have really deep seated homosexual desires, I doubt therapy is going to make you start being attracted to the opposite sex, although I have friends who were miraculously healed from this.  It might make carrying the cross of celibacy more bearable, to have someone to listen.  Most therapists are nincompoops, though.

[Socrates]

Thank you for the clarification and quotes, Socrates. Would it be wrong, then, to "play along" with such people and refer to them as their "new" sex rather than their God-given one (e.g., using "ma'am" or "sir" or "he" or "she")?

 

I assume that whatever you reply in response to this will apply equally to cross-dressing folk as to people who have undergone surgical changes.

 

I think it's largely a matter of prudence - how well you know the person and other factors.  Fortunately, I don't have to deal with "transgendered" persons on a regular basis.

 

If they've already begun the "gender reassignment" process, it probably won't be easy to convince them otherwise, and in some cases starting a confrontation with them over their "gender" would be counter-productive, unless you're really in a position to do so.

 

At that point, it's probably best to pray for them and leave the rest to God.