Transgender people cannot be godparents, says Vatican

[4consideration]

... so being transgender *is* incompatible with "living according to Catholic teachings."

They didn't say "transgender" in the article. They said "transexual" and it seems to be talking about people who have taken steps to change their gender...and, from what I've read, yes, it seems that it is accurate to say that the Catholic church is saying it's against their teachings. I think I'm just taking the Pope's word for it in what I think he's meaning. I'm not inclined to do theological research on it.

 

[columbus]

The Catholic Church has certainly made it known that you have to adhere to certain standards of belief and behaviour

Not really. The Vatican is trying to keep most of a billion people on the same page in a world of increasingly fast change. That is a tall order.

Especially since one of the biggest changes is the increasing tendency of people to make up their own minds about things and issues that didn't even exist for 95% of church history.
Tom

 

[Shadow Wolf]

They didn't say "transgender" in the article. They said "transexual" and it seems to be talking about people who have taken steps to change their gender...and, from what I've read, yes, it seems that it is accurate to say that the Catholic church is saying it's against their teachings. I think I'm just taking the Pope's word for it in what I think he's meaning. I'm not inclined to do theological research on it.

I'm not assuming the Vatican or author of the article is knowledgeable of the distinction. The article does use both terms (the URL mentions it, and it is under the "transgender" category of the site), , and an organization promoting archaic and false views of gender I just see no reason to think they have studied it enough to even be aware there is a difference between the two terms.

 

[Acim]

The whole they (or we) are born that way adds to the narrative of what is the problem (with why Catholic Church can't go along with it). Clearly it is both choice and innate. If you are off in left field saying it is only innate, I look forward to having a debate. I believe with some in this thread we've already had the debate, and if you want to do that again here or in another thread, I'm game.

But reality is, as I see in this thread, so many are missing the mark of the RCC position, and making deceitful claims about what RCC believes/doesn't believe. All that's on you.

Me, I'm not a fan of RCC, but an incidental issue like this is not really on my radar except for whatever this thread wishes to discuss.

 

[4consideration]

I'm not assuming the Vatican or author of the article is knowledgeable of the distinction. The article does use both terms (the URL mentions it, and it is under the "transgender" category of the site), , and an organization promoting archaic and false views of gender I just see no reason to think they have studied it enough to even be aware there is a difference between the two terms.

You're probably right they may not be aware of the distinction. I'm just saying what I think to be the case, and I could be wrong. I think it's the action of changing something they consider to be "the natural state" of a person , so I think that's their motivation.

 

[columbus]

I think it's the action of changing something they consider to be "the natural state" of a person , so I think that's their motivation.

I think a bigger motivation was "doing what's best for the whole Church".
Had the Vatican simply approved trans godparents there would have been a firestorm of opposition. That is not in the interests of the Church or the Mission.
With trans people making up way under a percent of the population, especially amongst practicing, churchgoing, Catholics that firestorm would have caused more damage than the route that they took.
Believing that the world shouldn't be that way doesn't change the fact that it is.
Tom

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

As far as I know it is customary, but not necessary to have two, because in the case of an adult convert, it can be that only one person fulfills that role, and is called a "sponsor" -- and being either male or female is not an issue. It's not a gender based role.

What the issue, as far as I know, is that the church at this time considers a person "naturally" or according to "God's will" to be of the gender they were born to. So that, when a person takes actions to change that about themselves, rather than "reconcile themselves" with what the church considers to be the will of God, that is a matter of not living according to the church's beliefs and/or teachings. Therefore, that would disqualify a person as being one among many issues, that might -- due to the person not living a Catholic life -- and therefore, not qualifying for a role that is reserved only for people that actually believe and are living according to Catholic teachings in their own life.

Okay, I concede the point. You're right; well argued.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not really. The Vatican is trying to keep most of a billion people on the same page in a world of increasingly fast change. That is a tall order.

Especially since one of the biggest changes is the increasing tendency of people to make up their own minds about things and issues that didn't even exist for 95% of church history.
Tom

They haven't changed their position that you need to not be in a state of mortal sin to receive the Eucharist. That's what I was getting at.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They didn't say "transgender" in the article.

The article used to say "transgender". You can still see it in the link in the OP. Seems like they've corrected it since they originally posted it.

I may have been coming at this with an incorrect impression of the Catholic Church's position based on the article before the correction.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Good point.

Probably a good reason not to be a member of the church.

For me, sure. For someone who disagrees with the Church's position but who thinks it's the only place to get the "real" Eucharist (which he think he needs as much as actual food), it's less clear.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

This is such an interesting matter to pursue. Catholicism has a bit of an intentional vagueness about who belongs to the Church and who does not. Belief is often both deemed important and presumed without questions.

I get the sense that there is an internal, perhaps intentional contradiction in the Church's goals. It aims to be inclusive, yet it also has unreasonable expectations.

No, there's no vagueness about who belongs to the Church - everyone who has been Baptized and Confirmed in the Church is a Catholic, end of story. You may be non-practicing. Hell, you may worship the Devil. But you're still considered a Catholic. Just a naughty one.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That is your personal experience. But if you did a poll of the ~billion or so Catholics you wouldn't get that result. That's the problem the Vatican has, they cannot be everything to everybody. To western liberals this is important and a no brainer. To the vast majority it's a "first world" problem.
Tom

Most Catholics live in Western countries.

 

[columbus]

Most Catholics live in Western countries.

And even in the more liberal parts of the west I believe that only a small percentage of the devout would agree that trans people should be godparents.
Tom

 

[columbus]

No, there's no vagueness about who belongs to the Church - everyone who has been Baptized and Confirmed in the Church is a Catholic, end of story.

I distinctly recall you getting me booted out of the Catholic DIR because I don't meet your standards.
Tom

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I distinctly recall you getting me booted out of the Catholic DIR because I don't meet your standards.
Tom

If you got booted, apparently you didn't meet the standards of the DIR, either.

 

[columbus]

If you got booted, apparently you didn't meet the standards of the DIR, either.

I did find it ironic that the RF staff is so much stricter about Catholicism than the Pope. But I also understood that their hand was forced.
Tom

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No, there's no vagueness about who belongs to the Church - everyone who has been Baptized and Confirmed in the Church is a Catholic, end of story. You may be non-practicing. Hell, you may worship the Devil. But you're still considered a Catholic. Just a naughty one.

To me, that seems just another version of "once saved, always saved," and I see no reason that it should be considered true.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

To me, that seems just another version of "once saved, always saved," and I see no reason that it should be considered true.

That's not what it is. Baptism and Confirmation are Sacraments and are irreversible. Basically, it has a permanent effect on the soul. It's like joining a family through a blood rite. So in that way, they're counted as a Catholic. However, a person can decide to distance themselves from it and eschew the faith. Then they become a "lapsed Catholic" or an "ex-Catholic". Of course, if they don't believe in the Sacraments, none of that matters to them, they're just not a Catholic anymore. That's just the Church's view of it, anyway. Salvation is a different matter entirely. There is no teaching like "once saved, always saved" in either Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Salvation isn't something you have, as in some static thing that occurs in a definite moment. It's a process and something you work towards.

 

[Mindmaster]

I did find it ironic that the RF staff is so much stricter about Catholicism than the Pope. But I also understood that their hand was forced.
Tom

What man? By Church rules it takes a nasty letter to an Archbishop (or better) to get out of the church. By rights, anyone who was ever Catholic still is Catholic.

 

[columbus]

What man? By Church rules it takes a nasty letter to an Archbishop (or better) to get out of the church. By rights, anyone who was ever Catholic still is Catholic.

I don't understand what you mean.
That seems to be the same thing I was saying. The local RCC parish and the Pope are more welcoming to me than the RF Catholics like St.Frank and the RF staff.
I am confused by your post.
Tom