Today’s news that the Vatican has approved the baptism of transsexuals bears all the earmarks of the current papacy. The statement from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith does not directly contradict prior authoritative statements of Church doctrine or discipline. But it gives every indication that pastors who ignore the rules will have nothing to fear from Rome.
The statement, issued in October by Cardinal Victor Fernandez, also gives the Catholic world another indication of what we can expect from the Vatican’s doctrinal office, now that the Pope’s favorite theologian is in charge. Cardinal Fernandez has been busy during his first weeks in his new office. Careful Vatican observers saw the Argentine cardinal’s all over the recent papal document, Ad Theologiam Promovendam, calling for a “paradigm shift” in Catholic theological studies. The new doctrinal czar has a clear mandate from the Pope to shake up the theological world — to “make a mess,” in the parlance of this papacy — and he is already hard at work.
The document that he released in October, answering questions from a Brazilian bishop (and isn’t it nice when the Vatican responds to dubia?), is careful to say that transsexuals should be baptized “if well prepared and willing.” The statement goes on to caution that “when the sacrament is received without repentance for serious sins, the subject does not receive sanctifying grace.” So as it stands the Vatican document can be read to say that someone who has undergone gender-reassignment surgery, and then repented of that choice, can be baptized. Which of course is in accord with traditional Catholic teaching; any repentant sinner may be baptized.
However, the statement does not say what serious sins should be repented before baptism is allowed; it does not confirm that voluntary self-mutilation is a serious sin. So the document can also be read as saying that a man who is now living as a woman, or a woman living as a man, can be baptized— as long as there is no likelihood of scandal. If that interpretation is allowed, then a pastor can proceed with the baptism of a proud transsexual as long as he can be assured of the community’s acceptance; the Church would not resist the trend to normalize the abnormal.
The Dicastery applies the same logic to transsexuals acting as godparents: they can, as long as they are properly disposed. Here again the statement finesses the canonical requirement (#872) that a godparent must be “one who leads a life of faith in keeping with the function to be taken on” — which is to help the newly baptized “to lead a Christian life in keeping with baptism and to fulfill faithfully the obligations inherent in it.” Someone who has undergone and then repented gender-reassignment surgery might make an excellent godparent. But someone who is happy with an ersatz gender identity — and for all we know might encourage his godchild to take the same step — would not. The new Vatican document does not distinguish between those two possibilities, except with the anodyne caution that the prospective godparent should be properly disposed.
On the question of whether transsexuals can be official witnesses to a marriage, the Dicastery’s guidance is straightforward: They can. The function of a witness is to witness the exchange of vows. Current Church law makes no demands about the moral character of the witnesses. The new document does not represent a change.
In answer to questions about homosexual couples who “appear as parents of a child” to be baptized, the Vatican statement does seem to break new ground. Skipping quickly over the likelihood that the baby was obtained by illicit and immoral means “such as the womb for rent,” the statement simply cites the canonical requirement (#868) that “there must be a well-founded hope that he will be educated in the Catholic religion.” Is there a well-founded hope that an active homosexual couple, having purchased a baby, will instruct that child faithfully in Catholic morality? The Dicastery dodges that question, too— leaving it to the discretion of the pastor.
And the pastor’s discretion is given free rein yet again on the question of whether homosexuals can be godparents. Here the dicastery does make a distinction. If the prospective godparent lives with a partner of the same sex, but “leads a life in conformity with the faith,” then he is eligible. Of course. But if he is living in a “stable and declared relationship… well known by the community,” then there is a problem. [Emphasis added.] Here we wait for the Dicastery to say that in such a case the individual could not serve as godparent because it would cause scandal. But that is not what the Vatican document says. Instead the Dicastery says that “due pastoral prudence requires that each situation be handled thoughtfully,” and leaves it at that. One more time, the pastor who chooses a lax approach — in this case, one who sees no problem in allowing active homosexuals to be godparents — has the green light from the Vatican.
By Phil Lawler on Catholic Culture
God help us.
It would have been so much better for the whole church if Francis and Tucho had found a competent theologian to say the following:
1. As a matter of sacramental ontology, yes, a transgender person can be validly baptized because baptism is for all human beings, and transgender people do not lose their human nature.
2. That said, baptism presumes an act of faith in Christ, faith in and affirmation of what the Church teaches, and moral conversion away from sin. If a man who believes he is a woman or has mutilated his body to resemble a woman’s body, or if a woman who believes she is a man or has mutilated her body to resemble a man’s body seeks baptism, there ought to be manifest repentance for denying and attempting to change his or her fixed sexual nature before baptism is celebrated. Absent such moral conversion towards the true Christian anthropology taught by the Church, a baptism would still be valid, and would remove original sin and forgive all prior personal sins committed, but the baptism would have diminished efficacy as a source of grace in supporting the life of faith. Such a person’s baptism would, in the absence of sincere repentance and faith, be “dead on arrival,” so to speak, for that person would not have a living faith; he would have a dead faith, if any faith at all. But that person would be a baptized Catholic.
In answer your dubium,
Repent of using plastic bags and automobiles or planes with internal combustion engines. Repent of wanting to secure your border and ignore the fact that Jordan, Egypt and the Vatican all have secure borders and aren’t welcoming refugees. Condemn the U.S. by name, but do not condemn Hamas by name. Call Joe Biden, Gavin Newsom and Nancy Pelosi good Catholics. Repent of stating that sexual sins are sins, or al least that they’re serious. Repent of lawful firearms ownership. Mention nothing of McCarrick and Rupnik being permitted to function as clergy after evidence of serial abuse by them for years.
Any further questions, please contact Rev. James Martin, SJ, care of The Vatican.
Very irresponsible. Catholic teaching is very definite. It is not a matter of individual discretion or whim. Christ came to save us from our sins and lead us to Heaven– a very great gift. Catholics must take responsibility for their sins — and repent, and follow Christ correctly, sincerely– like mature adults. Many long decades ago, when the post-Conciliar RCIA was invented, I was asked, at a prominent, beautiful, historic church, where I sang in a semi-professional Choir, to volunteer as a godparent. I was placed with a wealthy lady who had a prestigious job in San Francisco. At one of the required individual meetings with this lady, as we were going over the material, she brashly informed me that she was bi-sexual, had lovers of both sexes, and believed in “fully expressing her sexuality.” I explained to her Christ’s teachings, and that she must repent and change her life. She was shocked. But I was very serious. I told her to please think things over carefully. Why was she seeking to become a Catholic? At the next meeting, she told me that she was having an affair with a prominent lay leader of the church, whose wife and children always sat in the front pew, at the main Sunday Mass. And worse– she and this man were planning a Sunday afternoon of sneaking off together, when his wife and kids were busy with church activities, after Mass. He was lurking nearby, waiting for our required meeting to finish. I said, “is that your true reason for wanting to be baptized, and join the Catholic Church?” She replied, “no,” that she was motivated to join because her last lover, whom she had broken up with, was active in lay ministry at a nearby Catholic church. Before thàt, she had had a well-to-do, live-in, lesbian lady lover, who was also Catholic. I said, “I cannot be your godparent.” Then I got up to leave. I made an appointment to see the pastor, and presented my dilemma with the RCIA program. He told me that he wanted nothing to do with the candidates’ individual lives. Their lives and decisions were up to them. And if a married lay leader was having an affair with this woman– that was his life, his decision. And I was not to judge the two of them. Just be a godparent, for the program, that’s all. The pastor was not going to get involved. I said, “well, I quit. I do not like this new RCIA program. Dishonest to Catholic teaching. Dishonest, before Almighty God. Ruining people’s lives. And ruining the Church. And you don’t care.” And I got up and left.
RCIA (now OCIA) is a total joke in the Catholic Church. Clown time. 🤡 Your example takes the cake. 🎂
Half of RCIA “conversions” are insincere. One year after baptism, they aren’t coming to Mass.
The Church is a mess.
Well, I just found out all about the OCIA, and the name change by the USCCB, in 2021, during the Pandemic. They will have their Fall meeting in Baltimore, starting tomorrow, Nov. 13-16. Amongst them, are too many phony hypocrites—- kow-towing to a secularist, unholy, phony tyrant. Or else next, perhaps they will suddenly be jobless, no paycheck, homeless, no benefits, elderly, vulnerable, and aging– cast out unjustly onto the streets, all alone… your good name, and all your excellent work, now scandalously smeared like mud, publicly, to all the world– like poor Bishop Strickland. Could that happen to our poor, excellent, honest, faithful archbishop? My God! Just like the evil situation of Christ telling the truth to the phony Pharisees– and next, one of His disciples betrays Him, and the Pharisees arrange to have Christ crucified. Look at all the wicked clerics highly favored by the Pope, like Rupnik– “Rape-nick”– and Fr. James Martin, Cdl. Hollerich, “Tucho,” and many other phony clerics. Totally faithless to Jesus Christ! Look at Andres Serrano, invited to the Vatican, wrongfully honored along with honest, sincere, true Catholic artists. In the secular world, workers have legally-established rights. If you are a good, honest employee, very honest, hardworking, and have always done a good job– you cannot suddenly be fired, unjustly, with no reason stated, by some petty, autocratic, bad boss. The company might fire your bad boss– and you can also sue them, and receive financial compensation, and get your job back. Not so, in the Catholic Church.
Oh. Bishop Strickland is not going to be out of a job, homeless, with no paycheck.
Bishop Strickland is correct, we must pray for the Pope and the Church, and we must always stand strongly for Jesus Christ, and for all His teachings, to life’s very end.
And pray for the laity.
And pray for Bishop Strickland.
That’s a lot of POC. 🍉🧋🍗🍺
How are they going to say that voluntary self-mutilation is a serious sin with Matthew 5:29-30?
It is a grave sin to mutilate yourself to avoid pregnancy.
Jesus, like a good Jewish rabbi of the time, was exaggerating to make a serious point. We’re not fundamentalists or we’d probably all be blind. Our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit. Any and all sins may be forgiven. But, continuing to choose sin is another matter. That’s not repentance. I don’t see how a person choosing to live a sinful lifestyle (sex outside of marriage, in such cases) could be considered as a godparent. How can they help raise a child in the Christian faith, which they’re denying by their very lifestyle and actions?
Can. 874 §1. To be permitted to take on the function of sponsor a person must:
1/ be designated by the one to be baptized, by the parents or the person who takes their place, or in their absence by the pastor or minister and have the aptitude and intention of fulfilling this function;
2/ have completed the sixteenth year of age, unless the diocesan bishop has established another age, or the pastor or minister has granted an exception for a just cause;
3/ be a Catholic who has been confirmed and has already received the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist and who leads a life of faith in keeping with the function to be taken on;
4/ not be bound by any canonical penalty legitimately imposed or declared;
5/ not be the father or mother of the one to be baptized.
Yes, as you note: “who leads a life of faith in keeping with the function to be taken on.” And, remember, canon law is the very minimum. According to Canon Law, any baptized Catholic male is canonically eligible to be elected Pope. I won’t be elected Pope nor will any male readers here, I’d wager. But, Gavin Newsom and Joe Biden are canonically qualified. We don’t, or shouldn’t, settle for minimums. The minimums merely establish common, known parameters.
No. Canon law is not the minimum. You cannot add things to it.
Someone who does not “lead a life of faith in keeping with the function to be taken on” is not qualified. Someone choosing to continue engaging in sex outside of marriage, a mortal sin, is simply not qualified. You noted that yourself (if you’re the same person as “requirements”). The last canon in the Code states, “… the salvation of souls, which is the supreme law in the Church, is to be kept before one’s eyes.” (Canon 1752) Jesus’ words are above canon law and He is quite strong. “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in Me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” (Matt. 18:6) Some persons, even baptized Catholics, are not fit to be godparents (at least until they repent).
Yes. someone living in sin is not acceptable. They should be living a life of faith.
A Catholic friend of mine, educated by Jesuits, shared with me that in order to accommodate LGBTQ+ persons and divorced and remarried heterosexuals, the church has had to “pivot”, that is, change course, with Pope Francis the leader of this movement, aided by Cardinal Victor Fernandez and cardinals of like mind throughout the world. We are in the middle of this course change, he explained, with a great deal left to do in this new trajectory. He surmised Francis’ desire to change rules for the conclave is to ensure the new course is maintained by his successor. What the ultimate result of this pivot might be is a matter of speculation, but the direction clearly favors more freedom of conscience and discernment as opposed to rules and regulations.
I am still thinking of this conversation centered around the idea of “pivot.” The idea is the culture as radically changed and the Church must change with it to reach those on the peripheries. However, looking at the Episcopal Church in America — it is true that it is LGBTQ+ friendly, women’s ordination friendly etc. and how is it doing? Same with the Methodists–some churches are essentially Unitarian, having dropped all pretense of orthodox Christianity. Further, I see a real challenge from Scripture: Romans 12:1-2. Verse 2 directs us not to imitate the world but be transformed by the renewal of the mind, so that it may discern what God approves of. Also Philippians 1:9-10 and Paul’s prayer that the Philippians’ love might abound with knowledge and all discernment, so that they might approve what is excellent so as to be pure and blameless. I have great difficulty reconciling these verses and aspects of the new trajectory, the “pivot.” Bishop Strickland, or Msgr. Strickland now, had the same difficulty. I hope to engage my friend to further the conversation.
And just what will these pivoting geniuses do when the World “pivots” back? It’s hard to glue back that branch you’re sitting on, once you’ve sawn through it.
Very clever. SouthCoast. I think I get your point, and I hope the editors pick your comment for special recognition.
Very few Catholics really know the Catholic faith.
I think your friend’s conjecture is probably based on internet gossip rather than reality.
“I think your friend’s conjecture is probably based on internet gossip rather than reality.” I don’t think so. He was educated by Jesuits, and the influence remains, these many years later.
Bishop Strickland is now “Bishop emeritus.” His consecration as a Bishop is not honorary– it is the highest degree of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, and is permanent, and cannot be removed. The Catholic Church is of Christ, and people must study our religion, and make up their minds to either accept it or reject it. There is only one kind of “unity,” and that is unity with Christ Himself. There can be no false “church unity,” amongst arguing human beings with various religious viewpoints. There is only one Truth– and that is Christ’s Truth. Either we are in unity with Christ– or we have rejected Him. You cannot make up a false pretense of “pivoting,” creating lies, falsely attempting to “change” His teachings, to foolishly try to “accomodate” those who have rejected Him. Those who honestly reject Christ’s teachings, must grow up, face reality, and accept the consequences of their decisions. That is how I see it.
This is not the teaching of the Church.
We are not Protestants.
We baptize infants who can’t accept or reject the Faith.
Belonging to the Church is a gift.
Baptism is permanent, too.
You are given unity with Christ in baptism.
No matter how sinful you are you do not lose that.
You can lose sanctifying grace by sinning mortally but there is confession to absolve you of that sin.
“This is not the teaching of the Church.” Do forgive, but I fail to see any contradiction between Reply to Dan and infant baptism, try as I might. Perhaps you, infant baptism, could show me where your thoughts and those of Reply to Dan diverge, and thanks in advance. I am getting up in years, and fear my powers of analysis are diminishing.
The sentence on Holy Orders is true. The rest is very strangely worded for a Catholic.
“Bishop Strickland is now “Bishop emeritus.”” I stand corrected. Thank you.
It is both moving and encouraging to read the thought-filled comments here by holy people. Thank you.
I would like to share some words from Cardinal Sarah regarding the Magisterium:
ROME – In a rare intervention, Cardinal Robert Sarah has said that “the crisis of the Church has entered a new phase: the crisis of the Magisterium.”
Speaking to a standing-room only crowd on 26 October in Rome, at the launch of Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s new book “Credo: Compendium of the Catholic Faith” (Sophia Press, 2023), the former prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments observed that “a true cacophony reigns today in the teachings of pastors.”
Bishops and priests “seem to contradict each other” and impose their personal opinions “as if [they] were a certainty”. The result, the Guinean cardinal said, “is confusion, ambiguity, and apostasy. Great disorientation, deep bewilderment and devastating uncertainties have been inoculated in the souls of many Christian believers”.
Yet stressing a crucial distinction, Cardinal Sarah told those present and watching via live-stream. “When we speak of a crisis in the Church, it is important to point out that the Church, as the Mystical Body of Christ, continues to be ‘one, holy, catholic, and apostolic’… The Church, as the continuation and extension of Christ in the world, is not in crisis. It is we, her sinful children, who are in crisis,” he said.
Drawing upon the Lord’s last discourse in the Gospel of St John, the cardinal further insisted that “the authentic Magisterium, as a supernatural function of the Mystical Body of Christ, exercised and guided invisibly by the Holy Spirit, cannot be in crisis; the voice and action of the Holy Spirit are constant, and the truth towards which it leads us is steadfast and unchanging”.
Within this context, he praised Bishop Schneider’s new Compendium as an aid to those “little ones who are ‘who are hungry for the bread of right doctrine,’” adding that “it will also prove to be an important tool in the essential missionary work of evangelization and apologetics in announcing the Saving Truth of Jesus Christ in our world that so desperately needs it”.
Axiom, your mention of Bishop Schneider’s catechism gave cause to look at some reviews. Here is one by one Amanda Farnum:
“Error and confusion has descended on Christ’s Church. Many Bishops (not all), and even the Pope, fail in their duty to protect and promote the timeless teachings of the Faith. This is a great reference book to purchase for these times. The clarity in this book is refreshing. Much of the content will shock most Catholics because the confusion has been spreading for quite some time now. Modern errors like transgenderism, LGBT ideology, and Synodalism are addressed boldly. Every Catholic home, who wishes to remain true to the Catholic Faith, instituted by Christ, and preserved for 2,000+ years, should get a copy of this book.”
Can the good bishop’s neck be not far from the chopping block?
‘
Error and confusion has not descended on Christ’s Church. The Pope does not fail in his duty to protect and promote the teachings of the Faith.
I am getting so tired of the bunk.
Here’s another one-There is a crisis in the Church. At least Bishop Schneider refutes that nonsense.
Transgenderism is not an error. It is a psychological condition.
Who knows what they mean by LGBT ideology?
Synodalism- do they mean synodality or are they confused with some other concept? It is not an error but people do not understand it.
Every Catholic Home should have a copy of the CCC.
This is a weird review.
It is fine for a bishop to write a catechism In fact, it may be necessary. There needs to be constant teaching of the Faith. Almost all Catholics have holes in their armor from a lack of teaching and/or understanding.
Dan, I looked for some reviews and found one that says it is not orthodox but contains some heterodoxy.
It is well documented that Bishop Schneider’s “catechism” contains doctrinal errors, mostly pertaining to what Vatican II taught.
For example, his “catechism” redefines schism as a refusal to “recognize” the Roman Pontiff instead of refusing to submit to the Roman Pontiff.
That’s convenient for him and his trad followers, because they are in de facto schism but don’t believe themselves to be. They claim to recognize the Pope while not submitting to him. Sorry, but that’s schism.
Stay away from Schneider’s flawed and dangerous “catechism.” I’m sure jon will agree with me.
Found another one by Ron Conte. He used to comment here.
Dan – Never in my life have I seen or heard so many Catholic bishops and clergy speaking out in desperation about the state of the Church. Never. Lay Catholics are following suit, and are not poisoned by the sites they visit (as one poster here likes to hammer home), but by witnessing for ourselves the fractious state of our Church because of some of its leaders. You’re right; outspoken orthodox bishops and priests alike will be lined up to face the grim reaper while many others will be too scared to speak up. This is where the laity must step up to defend the sacred tradition of our Faith.
“This is where the laity must step up to defend the sacred tradition of our Faith.” Axiom, I believe Bishop Sheen made the same point years ago. Were he alive today, I fear the hammer of Francis would descend upon his head, with a very jealous (or timid) American hierarchy uttering not a peep. I can see Bishop Sheen were he alive today, joining Bishop Strickland at Dodger Stadium in protest of the perverts being honored there, with the Los Angeles chancery stewingly silent. What has become of our Church?
He would have gone to the Mass, I think.
I think he would have prayed with the people at Dodger Stadium with Bishop Strickland. He believed it was the laity who would ultimately save the Church in her time of need, and while the hierarchy were represented at the Mass, the people were with Bishop Strickland near the scene of the outrage. Perhaps he would said Mass with Bishop Strickland and afterwards the rosary.
He probably would have stayed in New York.
Of course, something like that would not have happened in the US at that time.
Where are you seeing it?
Please do not read this book until the concerns with the paragraphs which contradict Church teaching get ironed out.
The convulsions and death-rattle of 1960’s cultural and ecclesiastical breakdown…playing out in real time before our very eyes.
Gay and trans are of the devil. Trans is emotionally manipulating mostly young girls on the autism spectrum to permanently mutilate their bodies and sterilize them.
When has the Church ever said that undergoing gender reassignment surgery was a sin?
It’s bodily mutilation.
What does the Church say about bodily mutilation? Not what it says in the paragraph on torture.
Obviously it would be a grave sin to mutilate someone else in a situation of cruelty or torture.
I really have never found anything from the Church on things like piercings, tattoo.
Aside from voluntary sterilization, I have never seen anything.
Nobody can answer that.
Fr. Benedict Groeschel has a very interesting story of his encounter with a transgendered person in his autobiography “Travelers Along the Way: The Men and Women Who Shaped My Life”
You’re just going to leave it at that?
They always show pics of the rainbow crowd smiling, but inside they are not happy.
The author should just conform to the Catholic Church’s teachings.
There are always things like “What if they just confess and keep doing the same things”?
And “What if they take communion 59 minutes after eating?”
There is always stuff like that.
Just follow the rules. If there aren’t rules, ask your pastor.
Don’t screw other people up with your concerns about your scruples.
The problem with Transexualism is that is based on the lie that we are not sexual people. We are. God created us men and women. Certainly there is breadth on how we live that out. We lie to ourselves when as a man we say we feel like a women or vise versa. We as men feel like men because we are men. We as women feel like women because we are women. Our bodies are different, our minds are different, because we are created differently. What we need right now is clarity. It’s important that we have a mail priesthood because it clarifies what a man is. It’s important that we have women who are mothers, because it clarifies women and who women are. It does not mean that all women have to be mothers, or vise versa that all men have to be priests. Certainly they are in some regard.. It does mean that there is a difference in our species and that we are bianary.
For thousands of years this has been observed and accepted. In the Big Book of Aclholics Annoyomous it says, “acceptance is the answer to all my problems…” We are creating problems when we don’t accept the truth.
“Truth or reality is avoided when it is painfurl. We can revise our maps only when we have the discipline to overcome that pain. To have such discipline, we must be totally dedicated to truth. That is to say that we we must always hold truth, as best we can determine it, to be more important, more vital to our self-interest, than our comfort. conversely, we must always consider our personal discomfort relatively unimportant and, indeed, even welcome it in the service of the search for truth. Mental health is an ongoing process of dedication reality at all costs.”
M.Scott Peck, The Roadless Traveled, Page 5, 1978 Simon and Schuster New York.
“Man, I feel like a woman.” — Shania Twain
That page 51 not page 5
That’s not that
If I had $1 for every sex/gender out there, I’d have $2 and a whole bunch of counterfeits.
Ok, had to laugh. Thanks.
Comment of the week!!!