Statement of Francis DeBernardo, Executive Director, New Ways Ministry
MOUNT RAINIER, Maryland—The new Vatican document, Dignitas Infinita, fails terribly by offering transgender and nonbinary people not infinite, but limited human dignity. While it lays out a wonderful rationale for why each human being, regardless of condition in life, must be respected, honored, and loved, it does not apply this principle to gender-diverse people.
In its approach to gender, the document relies on the outdated theology of gender essentialism which claims that a person’s physical appearance is the central evidence of a person’s natural gender identity. This physicalist perspective shackles the Vatican to the growing consciousness that a person’s gender includes the psychological, social, and spiritual aspects naturally present in their lives.
Far from being an individual’s choice, gender identity is based on a discovery of who God created each of us to be accounting for factors other than the physical appearance of one’s body.
The document’s attempt to uphold and defend human dignity is weakened by its stunning lack of awareness of the actual lives of transgender and nonbinary people The Vatican’s arguments and conclusions on gender identity and gender transitions indicate that the authors failed to consult developments about gender in the biological, psychological, and social sciences. Worse yet, it shows the authors did not listen intently to the lived experience of people who have discovered, often after painful and torturous journeys, that God has naturally created them with a gender identity beyond social expectations, usually based on physical appearance.
By simply dismissing this growing awareness of the realities of gender as “gender theory,” the authors of this document abdicate their responsibility to uphold transgender and nonbinary people’s dignity. By cavalierly categorizing LGBTQ+ inclusion as a Western phenomenon imposed in a colonialist fashion on other cultures, the authors ignore the anthropological fact, documented by many scholars even before the current day, that cultures around the world and throughout history have acknowledged and celebrated gender identities beyond the church’s claims of male/female gender binary.
If ideological gender theory and colonization exist in the world, it exists in the schema outlined by this document a person’s gender is based on physical appearance, and that only two genders, male and female, exist in human reality. Recent discoveries and experiences show that the poverty of church leaders’ thinking about transgender and nonbinary denies the rich diversity with which God created the world.
The document should not be dismissed as simply an abstract theological conversation with few human consequences. Rather, the Vatican is again supporting and propagating ideas that lead to real physical harm to transgender, nonbinary, and other LGBTQ+ people. They are harmed by the very violence which this document condemns in economic, psychological, spiritual, social, and most tragically, physical forms, resulting in grave damage that often leads to death.
While Vatican officials do not yet understand transgender and nonbinary’s people infinitedignity, the Catholic faithful have already done so. Catholics, especially the laity but even some bishops, have come to know, accept, and love people with diverse gender identities. Like many instances in the past, the LGBTQ-positive faithful will call on church officials to better apply Catholic social teaching to the realities of gender and sexual identities today.
A stab in the backs of LGBTQ people? I am still reading, but it looks bad so far. The question in my mind is whether transgenderism should be understood "theologically." To vastly oversimplify, if God makes every individual definitively male or female from the moment of birth (or conception), how is transgenderism to be explained?
ReplyDeleteI would be SO happy if the Church stopped at "a wonderful rationale for why each human being, regardless of condition in life, must be respected, honored, and loved."
ReplyDeleteThis is a quote from the article about the document on the NCR site today: "... the document also begins with a caveat that all persons, regardless of their sexual orientation, must be respected, and "every sign of unjust discrimination is to be carefully avoided, particularly any form of aggression and violence."
ReplyDelete"For this reason," the document continues, "it should be denounced as contrary to human dignity the fact that, in some places, not a few people are imprisoned, tortured, and even deprived of the good of life solely because of their sexual orientation"
It seems like this is an effort to stand up for justice and respect for the dignity of those who identify as LGBT+, without buying into some of the ideology which has only appeared lately. Such as the idea that gender is assigned at birth. I would argue that biological sex can be observed at birth, in about 99.99% of cases. And that pregnant people are by definition biological females.
Unfortunately, by always speaking of unjust discrimination, the Catholic Church continues to leave the door open to (or even advocate) discrimination it defines as just. For example, in Some Considerations Concerning the Response to Legislative Proposals on the Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Persons (1992): "Such initiatives, even where they seem more directed toward support of basic civil rights than condonement of homosexual activity or a homosexual lifestyle, may in fact have a negative impact on the family and society. Such things as the adoption of children, the employment of teachers, the housing needs of genuine families, landlords' legitimate concerns in screening potential tenants, for example, are often implicated. . . . There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment."
ReplyDeleteYes, the document says "not a few people are imprisoned, tortured, and even deprived of the good of life solely because of their sexual orientation." But the Church makes a distinction between orientation and behavior. "Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons including the right of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity (cf. no. 10). Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory. This would obtain moreover not only in the case of culpable behavior but even in the case of actions of the physically or mentally ill. Thus it is accepted that the state may restrict the exercise of rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons, in order to protect the common good." What exactly is "disordered external conduct"? It is anything the Church doesn't like at that point in time. Some will point out that the documents from the 1980s and 1990s seem dated and even harsh. For example, it seems a bit old fashioned to object to gays in the military, or even the recognition of same-sex marriage. But the point is that the Church arrogates to itself the right to decide what is unjust discrimination, and its definitions lag behind the times in fair-mindedness.
As for "gender assigned at birth," the current understanding (or mine, anyway) is that gender and biological sex are not two terms for the same thing. I would agree that biological sex can be identified at birth in the vast majority of cases. However, 99.99% would seem to be way too high. I have no problem with saying "pregnant person" must be a biological woman, but that is a question of biological sex, not gender.
What I believe is that "gender dysphoria" is a real phenomenon, and while there may be a certain amount of "social contagion" involved, nevertheless there are individuals with the genuine and persistent belief that they are "males in female bodies" or "females in male bodies," and that such people are reacting to something in their genetic or physical makeup that underlies their feelings. I would not describe such feelings as mental illness. They have a right to live their lives free of harsh judgments from the Catholic Church that make their lives even more difficult.
I think progress has been made since the 1980s and 1990s. Definitely since earlier decades than those. Probably not enough, but moving forward.
DeleteI agree that gender isn't the same as biological sex and that 'gender dysphoria' is a real phenomenon for some people. But I get the idea that gender theory is too dismissive of biological sex. It's a scientific fact, we are stuck with our chromosomes until we die, even though some people may choose to live as another gender.
It's a scientific fact, we are stuck with our chromosomes until we die, even though some people may choose to live as another gender.
DeleteChromosomes don't give a definitive answer. For example there is androgen insensitivity syndrome. "Androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS) is when a person who has one X and one Y chromosome (typically seen in males) is resistant to hormones that produce a male appearance (called androgens). As a result, the person has some of the physical traits of a female, but the genetic makeup of a male. . . . A person with CAIS [complete androgen insensitivity syndrome] appears to be female but has no uterus, no fallopian tubes, or ovaries. They have very little armpit and pubic hair. At puberty, female sex characteristics (such as breasts) develop. However, the person does not menstruate or become fertile."
So through mistakes of nature, there are persons who are genetically male but have a surface female appearance. What is the essential difference between a biological male who has his surface appearance altered surgically to appear female, and a genetic male who has a genetic anomaly causing him/her to outwardly appear female? Are nonfunctional "skin deep" female sexual characteristics sufficient to make a person a woman?
Dignitas Infinita says: "Another prominent aspect of gender theory is that it intends to deny the greatest possible difference that exists between living beings: sexual difference. This foundational difference is not only the greatest imaginable difference but is also the most beautiful and most powerful of them. In the male-female couple, this difference achieves the most marvelous of reciprocities. It thus becomes the source of that miracle that never ceases to surprise us: the arrival of new human beings in the world."
Doesn't this sound kind of strange coming from elderly celibate men? It makes me think of the old saying, "Vive la différence!"
What I am reading is that chromosomal anomalies with extra x or y chromosomes, such as in Klinefelter's or Turner's syndrome, occur in approximately 0.17% to 0.25% of live births, and ambiguous genitalia occur in 0.02% to.05%.
Delete(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3681172/#:~:text=Numeric%20and%20structural%20chromosomal%20abnormalities%20occur%20in%20approximately,often%20result%20in%20dysmorphism%2C%20malformations%2C%20and%2For%20developmental%20disabilities.)
To be clear I believe in all human beings' equal dignity and rights, and we absolutely shouldn't discriminate in any way. People should be free to live their identity as they understand it.
But I think gender theory has taken a few exceptions and ran with them, with some harmful consequences.
"But I think gender theory has taken a few exceptions and ran with them, with some harmful consequences." Consequences like what?
DeleteThe clip David offers sounds like those menstruation films we saw in the 1960s--all bunny rabbits and flowers, no blood stains, zits, mood swings, cramps, or boys saying "you must be on the rag." The Vatican should stick to "no sex sanctioned outside of sacramental marriage" and stop trying to pretend it understands the biology and psychology of sex, gender, and eros.
Delete"What I believe is that "gender dysphoria" is a real phenomenon, and while there may be a certain amount of "social contagion" involved, nevertheless there are individuals with the genuine and persistent belief that they are "males in female bodies" or "females in male bodies," and that such people are reacting to something in their genetic or physical makeup that underlies their feelings. I would not describe such feelings as mental illness. "
DeleteI agree it's real.
I am just starting to read the document, so I haven't seen (yet) that the church officially considers it an "illness" (as though it may be amenable to a cure?).
Based on second-hand accounts and snippets of the document I've seen so far, I suspect this document is trying to harmonize compassion for gender-dysphoric persons with JP II's Theology of the Body.
"Consequences like what?"
DeleteMost of the harmful consequences affect adolescents, particularly between the ages of 11-17, particularly girls. Prior to about 2012 most of those seeking treatment for gender dysphoria were boys. Now something like 75% are girls. The drug most commonly used as a puberty blocker is presented as an on-off switch, but it doesn't quite work that way. Over time there are permanent effects on teeth and bone development, and future fertility, not to mention that most of them end up going on hormone treatment..Medicalization of our bodies is not consequence free.
A lot of European countries are backing off of gender treatment for adolescents.
We need to ask why so many adolescent females are finding it miserable to be growing up to be women. Part of it could be that puberty isn't fun. How many of us liked getting periods? And didn't like the perceived sexualization of our bodies, which has been magnified in our media soaked society. Not to mention bullying, adolescence can be a really rough patch for kids.
Adults can do whatever they want to with their own bodies, but we need to really exercise caution about what we are doing to kids.
Okay, thanks, I see what you mean. Biologically there are likely problems with hormone therapy during formative years. One of the reasons I oppose OTC birth control pills that some prolifers have embraced as a way to curb abortions.
DeleteI do, however, think appropriate treatment for individuals who have gender dysphoria needs to be left up to parents, doctors, and mental health counselors, not theologians and state legislators who are shocked by behavior outside the binary norm and just want to suppress it.
There was a pretty good report on NPR. Pointed out that the document addresses a number of other issues--poverty, surrogacy, immigration.
ReplyDeleteWas that bundling of issue saying to Rad Trad MAGA Francis-hating Catholics, "There's the line you want on sex and gender, but you also have to swallow some hard stuff on poverty and immigration along with it"?
https://www.npr.org/2024/04/08/1243374931/vatican-sex-change-surrogacy-gender-theory-grave-threats-abortion
Re: poverty, immigration, et al - according to the document's preface, it was Francis who sent the document back for further revision and insisted its outlook be broadened to include issues such as those you mention.
DeleteRight. I don't really find that these documents do much more than reiterate what's already in the Catechism I received 25 years ago at RCIA, but at first glance, grouping these issues together struck me as interesting.
DeleteAs a cancer patient, I am disappointed with the Church's proscription on assisted suicide, which was also mentioned in the document. I have arranged disposition of my remains after consulting the local priest to ensure I'm not asking Raber to break any rules. But apparently bringing things to a thrifty and peaceful close, at least with spousal support, is not in the cards.
Anne, if you're reading this, how is your recovery from cataract surgery coming along?
ReplyDeleteWhether or not puberty-blockers should be used on pre-adolescents, or whether or not adolescents should have any procedure to physically alter their sex-characteristics (e.g., "top surgery" [breast removal] for f-to-m transitioning) are legitimate and reasonable questions. However, as I understand the Catholic position, the Church is totally hostile to any gender-affirming approach to caring for youths with gender dysphoria.
ReplyDeleteI have spent a good deal of time attempting to research what parents of children with gender dysphoria are supposed to do, and I have found next to nothing. However, I can only imagine, given the stance described in Dignitas Infinita, that anything that smacks of transitioning is forbidden. For example, permitting a m-to-f trans child to use "her" own pronouns, answer only to a female name of "her" choice, dress in feminine clothes, and so on, would not be permitted. This is all part of gender-affirming care and would be endorsed by all major medical and mental-health organizations (AMA, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, WHO).
I will have to read the document, which I haven't done yet. But I wouldn't think that things such as pronouns, using another name, or choice of clothing were verboten. Giving consent to surgery or medications for adolescents that weren't medically necessary are another subject. But "soft" accommodation such as pronouns and clothing seem like accompaniment rather than intervention. Parents' first duty is to care for their children, not push them away. Sometimes you have to rely on your own judgement.
DeleteAbout accompaniment, I know that Pope Francis has met with LBGT+ people, and their advocates such as Fr. James Martin and Sister Jeanine. I never heard that he made a big deal about pronouns or names with them.
An interesting article recently in the New York Times:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/02/opinion/transgender-children-gender-dysphoria.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIf you get paywalled out of the NYT, the article can also be found here: https://patabook.com/news/2024/02/02/opinion-as-kids-they-thought-they-were-trans-they-no-longer-do/
DeleteA word of warning, the article is about kids who detransitioned
From the article: "Garcia-Ryan, 32, . . . no longer believes anyone under 25 should socially, medically or surgically transition without exploratory psychotherapy first." That's pretty extreme, although perhaps understandable given his own experience. I do agree, though, with the last part—i.e., that no one should transition without exploratory psychotherapy. For most of my adult life I have lamented that finding the right therapist is extraordinarily difficult. If you have a toothache, you can go to just about any dentist and get the standard treatment, but that is not so with mental or emotional problems. If I had a child with gender dysphoria, I would want to have some clear notion of the underlying causes before proceeding to gender affirming care and transitioning. I fear that controversy and politicization has resulted in polarization, and that is regrettable. Unfortunately, I think the Church just made things worse. However, I suspect average Catholics in the United States will make up their own minds and will be more openminded and sympathetic as they have been in other areas involving sex and reproduction.
DeleteThat's a good point about mental health care. It really is all over the place, never mind being hard to get an appt and that it's incredibly expensive. Plus I see that because of therapist shortage, they're using AI to provide canned questions and responses.
DeleteWe went thru initial tests and interviews with a couple of behavioral psychologists when The Boy was diagnosed with a learning disability. You almost need second and third opinions before you can see what the situation is. How does some poor kid with gender dysphoria and his parents run that minefield with a problem that's rare and politicized?
I don't think I'd trust AI to give life advice. I guess I did talk to it to get a credit card bill straightened out. But that's dealing with numbers. I've seen AI art, always something seems odd and out of place.
DeleteI guess one of the problems with the dearth of therapists is poor reimbursement by insurance and a very limited number of covered sessions. If you go to a doctor for a physical ailment they can probably process 4 or 5 patients through in an hour, and get the same reimbursement for each that a psychotherapist gets for one patient who takes the whole hour.