Catholics MUST Accept Transsexual Marriage

So, an Argentinian priest and bishop have now forced the entire Catholic Church to recognize the validity of the sacrament of marriage between transsexuals. It was a neatly done trick. Pope Francis would be very proud. 

This is how it was done. A biological man and biological woman, each of whom presents as the other sex (man wears a dress, woman takes testosterone and tries to grow a beard), presented themselves to a friendly parish priest and asks to be married. Now, keep in mind, the couple fulfill canonical norms: marriage is between one man and one woman, that's what we have here, it's just that both are mentally unstable. But the Church has already approved the idea that such mentally unstable people can both be baptized into the Church and act as godparents for baptism or witnesses for marriage. 

So, the priest, being no man's fool, talks with his bishop, to make sure bishop was ok with it. Bishop, being no man's fool, said, "Do it, but if it comes out, you will take the fall. We will put nothing in writing, which will keep Rome off my back." Priest said, "Sounds like a plan. Deal me in." 

Now that the mockery is public, bishop announces an "investigation" and insists "there is nothing in writing that shows I approved of this." Bishop now will slow-walk the "investigation" until people stop watching, then drop it. 

Notice that at no point is anyone talking about annulling the marriage. It cannot be annulled. There are no grounds because the marriage DID fulfill canonical norms (biological woman, biological man), and  the Church presumption is always that a sacramental marriage is valid, so that has to be the presumption here.

Is the couple "open to life"? Sure. It is a biological male and a biological female, so conception could happen and the "man" could get pregnant. Heck, they may even WANT to do that so they have children to abuse. Unless either spouse contests the bond, the Church isn't going to contest - it can't. The default canonical position is ALWAYS "the bond is valid." That's canon law. 

You might also say, "Well, the Church cannot marry the impotent." Sure, but sexual intercourse is not necessary for a valid marriage. As long as the sexual act could be completed in principle, that's enough.  The two can be sterile - that doesn't matter. The Church has never defined what constitutes a vagina or a penis, and surgical reconstruction or "improvement" to allow for the act is certainly permissible, even encouraged, for heterosexual couples.

"It follows that any sex-change intervention, as a rule, risks threatening the unique dignity the person has received from the moment of conception. This is not to exclude the possibility that a person with genital abnormalities that are already evident at birth or that develop later may choose to receive the assistance of healthcare professionals to resolve these abnormalities." ~Dignitas Infinita, #60

The problem, of course, is what counts as "genital abnormalities." If people insist they were "born in the wrong bodies" then the presence or absence of a Y chromosome would create, in their bodies, what those very same people would insist is a "genital abnormality." The presence/absence of the offending chromosome would be a "genetic disease." Therefore, what counts as "assistance of healthcare professionals to resolve these abnormalities" is now up for grabs in a way that was never true prior to roughly this decade. No Church document addresses this. A sterile "penis" created from the muscle tissue of the forearm combined with a fake, surgically-constructed "vagina", a permanent wound that requires constant daily dilation ... well, the doctors are using the correct words, so what is the Church going to do? Say a medical doctor is wrong: that isn't a penis, that isn't a real vagina? Not likely. 

As for the sexual act itself, that is not at all necessary for validity. This lack of consummation is the basis for a Josephite marriage, which - by definition - does not ever get consummated. Remember, Josephite marriages, because the participants remain virgins, are actually superior to marriages that are consummated. 

The Result: As a Catholic you are REQUIRED to believe the marriage bond, in this instance, is valid until an annulment is declared, which it never will be. By this action, the entire Catholic Church is now bound to accept transsexual marriage. If you do not accept this marriage as valid, you are putting yourself outside the millennial-old teaching and practice of the Christ-founded Catholic Church.

If you're Catholic, you are now OK with transsexual marriage.

You're welcome.

Catholic Social Teaching: Marriage

"The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says". 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man" 1 Timothy 2:12 

"Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her (died for her)." Ephesians 5:22-25

In Catholic social teaching, the principle of subsidiarity means that decisions and actions should happen at the lowest, most local, and competent level possible. Since men carry authority over their wives, that makes men more competent than women.

Now, you might equivocate by replying "But Ephesians also says, 'Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ' so that means men have to submit to women, which makes women the authority." Incorrect. Both spouses have to submit to Christ, because God holds authority in all relationships. Men submit to women only in the sense that the woman instantiates Christ. 

"it is in her relationship with Christ—who is for both spouses the one and only Lord—that the wife can and should find the motivation for the relationship with her husband, which flows from the very essence of marriage and the family." John Paul II

That is, the woman submits to the God-man (Christ), and only in her submission to the ruler of both men and women does the man submit to her. Yet, since men are called to die for the marriage, while women are only called to submit, men are the Christological symbol in a way that women never can be.

"As children of God, man and woman have a dignity in which they are absolutely equal; and they are equal, too, in regard to the supreme end of human life, which is everlasting union with God in the happiness of Heaven. But man and woman cannot maintain or perfect this equal dignity of theirs unless they respect and make use of the distinctive qualities which nature has bestowed on each sex: physical and spiritual qualities which are indissoluble, and so coordinated that their mutual relation cannot be upset without nature itself intervening to re-establish it." Pope Pius XII

Equality of dignity, but not equality of authority or capability. Out of all of Scripture, Ephesians 5:25 is the only passage that implies men should submit to women, and that is only in reference to the reverence both spouses must have for Christ. Saying anything else is simply eisegesis, reading modern meanings into a text, forcing it to say what the reader wants it to say rather than what it actually says.

When we take the Catholic definition of subsidiarity (lowest level of competent authority) with the Scriptures (woman must submit to man), then the Church, through her God-breathed Scripture and her own commentary, recognizes men are the lowest level of competent authority. Women have equal human dignity, but are not a competent authority, whether in marriage or in any position of public authority. 

Since as "authority is understood as service, not domination", this means men excel at serving others while women are pretty crappy at serving other people. Pope John Paul II confirms this when he says: 

"He (Paul) expresses a different concept instead, namely, that it is in her relationship with Christ—who is for both spouses the one and only Lord—that the wife can and should find the motivation for the relationship with her husband, which flows from the very essence of marriage and the family."

That is, the woman has to find something which she doesn't have. Women have to be taught how to engage in service properly by a man - either Christ or her husband. The essence of marriage and the family is teaching the woman how to do what men already naturally understand how to do.

This may explain why women have historically been put in service roles, thus providing them with the necessary practice at serving that men have as an in-born trait. Or, to put it another way, there is truth in the old saying, "A man will sacrifice his happiness for his family, while a woman will sacrifice her family for her happiness." Women must train themselves, or be trained, into imitating the man (husband or Christ) instead of following her own inborn inclinations. In fact, women are so unsuited to taking care of anyone but themselves (and arguably, even that is at issue) that not only are women not the source of authority in the ordo of marriage, women cannot even be considered for ordination into divine orders of service: deacon, priest or bishop. 

TLDR: Men are competent in handling a marriage, women are not.

Most Western cultures used to reflect this understanding by forbidding women from initiating divorce. As Western culture stopped being Christian, this Christian wisdom disappeared from the culture. Thus, women can and do initiate 70% of intimate partner violence, and between 70% and 90% of divorces. Of the three different possible pairings, studies show lesbian couples have the highest level of divorce and strife. Not surprising, given the couple is composed of two completely incompetent people.

Scripture = science = Christian teaching.

This isn't hard for men to understand, but women find it impossible to grasp, thus demonstrating the principle.

Incommensurate Goals

Pope Leo recently argued "surrogacy reduces the child to a product, and of the mother, exploiting her body." This stance is so broadly based that even women who wish to adopt and rescue embryonic children abandoned to nitrogen freezers after IVF procedures are forbidden from doing so.

So, let's take the Pope's assertions and apply them to another source of social exploitation:

When a novice friar asked permission to own a psalter for study, Francis refused, warning: "When you have a psalter, you will want a breviary; and when you have a breviary, you will install yourself in a throne like a great prelate, and you will command your brother: 'Bring me my breviary!'"  ~ Speculum Perfectionis, St. Francis of Assisi 

If we wish to stop objectification that harms children and destroys families, then women's education arguably contributes to that result. After all, educating women violates and exploits women, reducing women to a product. That is, once women have been objectified by receiving education, they now become just a product of the marketplace.

Women, in turn, now treat their own future children as products. They weigh their possible future enjoyment of earnings from education against their possible future enjoyment of children, and generally choose the money over the child.

Once education turns a woman into a product, she turns her own children into a product. Statistics show that uneducated women have more children than educated women (1, 2). Each additional year of schooling drops women's fertility by up to 0.3 children, with college education dropping fertility by up to 40% (3, 4, 5).

"Let those who are illiterate not be anxious to learn to read, but let them pay attention to what they must desire above all else: to have the Spirit of the Lord and His holy manner of working, to pray to Him with a pure heart, to have humility..."

        ~Testament, St. Francis of Assisi

The evidence is quite clear: if we educate women (which the Catholic Church supports), then we destroy family formation and reduce the likelihood of women having children (which the Church opposes). It wants two diametrically opposed outcomes to result simultaneously from the same action. That is not possible.

If the Catholic Church truly wishes to stop the objectification of women and children at its source, then it should be pushing hard for everyone, everywhere to stop educating women.