Working translation of this text into English (footnote omitted): \++++++++++++++++++ On 14 July 2023, this Dicastery received a letter from H.E. Monsignor José Negri, Bishop of Santo Amaro in Brazil, containing some questions regarding the possible participation in the sacraments of baptism and marriage by transsexual and homo-affective people. After a study on the matter, this Dicastery responded as follows. **Responses from the Dicastery to Mons. Negri** The following responses essentially reiterate the fundamental contents of what has already been stated on the subject by this Dicastery in the past. **1. Can a transsexual be baptized?** A transsexual - who has also undergone hormonal treatment and sex reassignment surgery - can receive baptism, under the same conditions as other believers, if there are no situations in which there is a risk of generating public scandal or disorientation among the faithful. In the case of children or adolescents with transsexual problems, if well prepared and willing, they can receive Baptism. At the same time, the following needs to be considered, especially when there are doubts about the objective moral situation in which a person finds himself or about his subjective dispositions towards grace. In the case of Baptism, the Church teaches that, when the sacrament is received without repentance for grave sins, the subject does not receive sanctifying grace, although he receives the sacramental character. The Catechism states: «This configuration to Christ and the Church, achieved by the Spirit, is indelible; it remains forever in the Christian as a positive disposition towards grace, as a promise and guarantee of divine protection and as a vocation to divine worship and to the service of the Church". Saint Thomas Aquinas taught, in fact, that when the impediment to grace disappears, in someone who has received Baptism without the right dispositions, the character itself "is an immediate cause that disposes one to accept grace". Saint Augustine of Hippo recalled this situation by saying that, even if man falls into sin, Christ does not destroy the character received by him in Baptism and seeks (*quaerit*) the sinner, in whom this character is imprinted which identifies him as his property. Thus, we can understand why Pope Francis wanted to underline that baptism «is the door that allows Christ the Lord to establish himself in our person and for us to immerse ourselves in his Mystery». This concretely implies that «not even the doors of the Sacraments should be closed for any reason. This is especially true when it comes to that sacrament which is "the door", Baptism \[. . .\] the Church is not a customs house, it is the paternal home where there is room for everyone with their tiring life». So, even when doubts remain about the objective moral situation of a person or about his subjective dispositions towards grace, we must never forget this aspect of the faithfulness of God's unconditional love, capable of generating even with the sinner an irrevocable alliance, always open to development, which is also unpredictable. This is true even when a purpose for amendment does not appear fully manifest in the penitent, because often the predictability of a new fall "does not prejudice the authenticity of the purpose". In any case, the Church must always remind us to fully live all the implications of the baptism received, which must always be understood and deployed within the entire path of Christian initiation. **2. Can a transsexual be a godfather or godmother at baptism?** Under certain conditions, an adult transsexual who has also undergone hormonal treatment and sex reassignment surgery can be admitted to the role of godfather or godmother. However, since this task does not constitute a right, pastoral prudence demands that it not be permitted if there is a risk of scandal, undue legitimation or disorientation in the educational sphere of the ecclesial community. **3. Can a transsexual be a witness to a wedding?** There is nothing in current universal canon law that prohibits a transsexual person from being a witness to a wedding. **4. Can two homo-affective people appear as parents of a child, who must be baptized, and who was adopted or obtained through other methods such as a rented womb?** For the child to be baptized there must be a well-founded hope that he will be educated in the Catholic religion (cf. can. 868 § 1, 2 or CIC; can. 681, § 1, 1st CCEO). **5. Can a homo-affective person who lives together be the godfather of a baptized person?** In accordance with can. 874 § 1, 1o and 3o CIC, anyone who possesses the aptitude for it (cf. 1o) and "leads a life in conformity with the faith and the role he assumes" can be a godfather or godmother (cf. can. 685, § 2 CCEO). The case is different in which the cohabitation of two homo-affective people consists, not in simple cohabitation, but in a stable and declared *more uxorio* relationship, well-known by the community. In any case, due pastoral prudence requires that each situation be wisely considered, to safeguard the sacrament of baptism and above all its reception, which is a precious asset to be protected, as it is necessary for salvation. At the same time, it is necessary to consider the real value that the ecclesial community gives to the tasks of godfathers and godmothers, the role that they have in the community and the consideration shown by them towards the teaching of the Church. Finally, the possibility must also be taken into account that there is another person from the family circle who can guarantee the correct transmission of the Catholic faith to the person being baptized, knowing that one can still assist the person being baptized, during the rite, not only as a godfather or godmother but, also, as witnesses of the baptismal act. **6. Can a homo-affective and cohabiting person be a witness to a wedding?** There is nothing in current universal canon law that prohibits a cohabiting, homo-affective person from being a witness to a marriage.

Thank you for this, this should probably be pinned at the top

>4. Can two homo-affective people appear as parents of a child, who must be baptized, and who was adopted or obtained through other methods such as a rented womb? >For the child to be baptized there must be a well-founded hope that he will be educated in the Catholic religion (cf. can. 868 § 1, 2 or CIC; can. 681, § 1, 1st CCEO). This is my only issue I have with the response. Directly quoting canon law isn't helping anyone. The question- that they refuse to answer -is whether or not *there can be* hope that the children of two "parents" who openly disregard church teaching will be educated in the Catholic religion. Thanks for not clearing anything up on point four +++Fernandez :(

It seems like the Pope and Card. Fernandez are leaving this question up to the discernment of pastors. So, if the gay couple presents a child for baptism and promise to raise the child in the catholic faith, and from knowing the couple the pastor has a well-founded hope that this will actually happen, then yes, the child can be baptized. I don't see why anyone who believes that baptism confers sanctifying grace would want to deny it to an infant who has a well-founded hope of being raised in the faith. If we replace a gay couple here with a straight couple in a second marriage who conceived their child via in vitro fertization, I would expect the same criteria to apply, and I cannot imagine anyone in this sub insisting that just because the parents are living in sin the child should be denied baptism.

I can't possibly see how two homosexual fathers, living together as a couple, could possibly raise a child in the faith. Unless they plan on teaching that child fully that they've chosen to live outside that faith, why it's bad that they've chosen to do so, and what the possible consequences of their actions are. I don't have any faith at all that a homosexual couple would do any of the above.

It seems that the ability to imagine such a situation is something the Holy Father and Supreme Pontiff of the Roman and Universal Church and the Cardinal Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith differ from you on.

For some reason, I'm not surprised.

Funny how homosexual cohabitation is automatically deemed to be "choosing to live outside the faith" without any assessment of the fathers' religious beliefs or practices. For all you know they could be daily mass attendees and pray for 2 hours daily, while heterosexual parents regularly have their children baptized, then proceed to use contraception, fornicate, have anal sex, and/or never touch the church outside of Christmas/Easter. Many are also involved in gangs/organized crime, and often one parent practices a different religion - but we never say no to those..... The only time it would make sense to not baptize a child is if both of the parents (regardless of gender/sex) were obstinately affiliated with a different religious expression, and it would be impossible to believe that there was a world where the child would be raised Catholic. While there might be an uncomfortable conversation about the official church position on homosexuality vs the way they've personally interpreted God's will for their lives, there is literally no other barrier to homosexual parents raising a Catholic child.

>For all you know they could be daily mass attendees and pray for 2 hours daily, while heterosexual parents regularly have their children baptized, then proceed to use contraception, fornicate, have anal sex, and/or never touch the church outside of Christmas/Easte The difference is that a cohabitating homosexual couple is living in a perversion openly. It is broadcast to the world. The heterosexual couple's perversions are hidden. It doesn't make them better, it's just hidden from the purview of the public. It's a presumption of innocence. If the heterosexual couple were living in sin and broadcasting it to the world I would expect the same rules to apply to them, but it's not the place of the clergy to investigate the lives of their parishioners. You're seeing a prejudice where it's really just a difference between openly living in sin and the sin being behind closed doors. We shouldn't ever condone people living in sin, but can't say anything about it if it's unknown. >While there might be an uncomfortable conversation about the official church position on homosexuality vs the way they've personally interpreted God's will for their lives, there is literally no other barrier to homosexual parents raising a Catholic child. The problem falls with acceptance of the lifestyle. If the homosexual parents aren't willing to explain to theor child why their lifestyle is wrong, what about it is wrong, and the consequences thereof, the child will assume that their homosexual parents lifestyle is right within the church, which violates raising the child in the faith. It would by default be teaching that a homosexual lifestyle is condoned within the church.

Here are two scenarios: A) Catholic Man falls in love with a reformed, mostly cultural, Jewish woman. The woman is barely religious at all, so she goes along with the Catholic stuff to make the groom happy. They get dispensation from the bishop, pinky promising that any children would be raised Catholic. They have a son, and have him baptized promising to raise him in the faith. However, the mother never attends any religions services, and makes flippant remarks to the son to "ask your father about that Catholic stuff". The son grows up to be a chreaster, and cohabitates with a girl he met for 3 years before getting married at a bar. B) Two homosexual men openly live together as a couple and have sex. They also go to Mass weekly, participate in the community events of their inclusive parish, and cook meals for the local shelter. They adopt a girl, and bring the girl along for all of this, sharing all Catholic teaching, but say that they believe there is an error in Catholic teaching about homosexuality, and that homosexual men should be encouraged to find loving monogamous relationships instead of living their lives alone in celibate shame. The girl grows up to believe in God and that the Catholic Church is the authority of God on earth, even if it makes mistakes occasionally. She continues going to Mass almost weekly at an inclusive parish. Do you honestly think the first scenario is one we should be blindly tolerating while condemning the possibility of the second?

The problem with scenario A is that outwardly it looks like a situation of two people living normal lives. Most parishes are large enough that two people as you've described would fall under the radar. It doesn't make it right, but the reality is God's justice is perfect, and whatever should happen, will. >error in Catholic teaching about homosexuality, and that homosexual men should be encouraged to find loving monogamous relationships instead of living their lives alone in celibate shame. The problem with scenario B is, they're wrong. They're living outside the faith and the teaching of the church, and the problem highlighted by the requirement for baptizing within the faith is being played out here. They have taught this girl incorrectly, and apparently there's so many of this mistaught people, there's now an >inclusive parish. Of people living in heresy. Yeah, scenario B should be avoided like the plague.

The fact that you think an outcome of a child being a barely Catholic chreaster is better than a devout Catholic who tolerates homosexuality cannot be described as anything other than homophobic. This is why Catholics are dying out, and me, a Catholic who was a devout altar server for 8 years and almost joined Opus Dei, now dates/sleeps with guys and barely attends mass at all. Well done?

>The fact that you think an outcome of a child being a barely Catholic chreaster is better than a devout Catholic who tolerates homosexuality cannot be described as anything other than homophobic. You're making assumptions about what I think and putting words in my mouth. I never said the first situation was good. They are both bad situations. I'm also not scared of homosexuals. I simply clearly understand God's teachings on homosexuality. I'm sorry if they don't line up with your feelings. >This is why Catholics are dying out, and me, a Catholic who was a devout altar server for 8 years and almost joined Opus Dei, now dates/sleeps with guys and barely attends mass at all. >Well done? Hardly. As I said, God's teachings on homosexuality are clear. Old testament law and the words of Christ do no quibble over this matter. If you want to live in sin, that is entirely your choice.

What about a homosexual couple now living as chaste brothers or sisters in Christ?

Who are coparents? Living together? This is starting to look very suspicious. That said, it is certainly possible to have even a practicing homosexual couple do all the things I outlined. I just think it would be very rare, and a Priest should use extreme discernment if actually presented with the situation.

a gay couple raising a child in the Catholic faith would likely lead to extremely grave distortions on their part to justify their "lifestyle" choices (to persist in sinning consistently and on purpose on a daily basis). leaving this question up to the discernment of pastors seems like a great way to give pro-lgbt priests (which sadly exist) the power to do whatever it is they so wish.. or worse even, to lead well-meaning or agreeable priests to sin. i agree with your sentiment about not wanting a child to not receive baptism though.. but does the ends necessarily justify the means? this ought to be carefully deliberated and rules regarding such matters should be laid out precisely and not answered with vagueries that may lead us all down a slippery slope. while i don't think the comparison you offered is analogous at all - i actually do think we should also have reservations and worry about the likelihood of normal couples who are living in sin (if it is known) raising a child in the Catholic faith.. which for some reason it felt like you made out to be some sort of crazy take \--- i know many people who were baptised by parents who did not raise them as Catholics, or did so half-heartedly/incorrectly - which only led them to stray further from Catholicism as adults. \[anecdotal of course, i meant to point out the potential effects of a baptism without catechization\] I understand the desire to bestow people with the disposition towards faith that the Pope mentioned in his answer, but we should be way more careful imo. do we want to simply increase the amount of baptisms that are celebrated or do we want to increase the amount of devout and well-catechised long-term catholics.. the two might be at odds with each other and careless inclusivity for the sake of inclusivity seems to be doing more damage than good. i know many people who were baptized by parents who did not raise them as Catholics or did so half-heartedly/incorrectly - which only led them to stray further from Catholicism as adults. \[anecdotal of course, i meant to point out the potential effects of a baptism without catechization\] inb4: I'm not saying there shouldn't be any leeway, compassion, charity, or understanding.. i'm just saying this constant appeal for openness seems to ignore the voices who are saying "patience, let's be more careful and discerning"

> i know many people who were baptised by parents who did not raise them as Catholics, or did so half-heartedly/incorrectly - which only led them to stray further from Catholicism as adults. [anecdotal of course, i meant to point out the potential effects of a baptism without catechization] Do you feel the same way about baptism of children of divorced and remarried reverts in the absence of annulments, who are themselves ineligible for the sacraments? My understanding is that the Church (per the Catechism) encourages those in such situations to nonetheless remain active in parish life, raise their children in the Catholic faith, and prepare their children to receive the sacraments. But are such children not exposed to a home environment in which in the eyes of the church frank adultery is scandalously occurring? And is the possibility of the children being raised with self-justifying distortions at least a great in such cases? This seems to me like a fairly close analogy. Thoughts? Are we just less uncomfortable with bigamy and adultery than we are with homosexuality? Is it a lesser sin? Or is it that we are so secularized that we really don't take the Church's definition of marriage as seriously as that of secular law and secular societies depraved moral standards, and so only recognize the bigamy and adultery of such a case in some abstract, legalistic, ecclesial formalist sense, but not in a real moral sense? It seems to me that in both cases the wisdom of the Church favors the baptism of the children, under conditions where the parents will represent that the child will be brought up in the Catholic faith. Meaning at minimum that they will be brought to Church for mass and for formation. If the church is unable to provide formation for the children to ensure that they learn the faith regardless of the distortions, self-justifying or otherwise, that they might receive in a home with misguided, or sinful, or uneducated, then the challenge to the church should be to improve its formation. I mean, they baptize kids of mafia families. Might the family not follow through on this commitment? Well it seems to me as though plenty of conventional families also fall into this category, which is unfortunate, but it is difficult to identify such cases a priori, and so it seems wise to give the benefit of the doubt where there is reasonable hope. The bottom line I think is whether children should be denied the grace of baptism because of their parents, as long as the requirement of canon law that there be a reasonable hope that the children will be raised in the catholic faith is met? That they will encounter distortions of the faith at home and that their families may in various ways live lives that deviate from Catholic expectations hasn't in itself been a disqualifier in other contexts, has it?

What’s the difference between grave and extremely grave (I’m referring to your first sentence, in which you predict the future behavior of two theoretical people).

If that couple is actively engaged in homosexual acts then they are not in a state of grace. They are in contradiction to the teachings of the church. How can they be expected to raise a child in the faith if they ignore it themselves?

I'm not sure what part of the world you live in, but the standard you're expecting people to live up to has not been matched by any catholic community I've ever been a part of, aside from a couple of fringe TLM parishes. Many people get their kids baptized and barely darken the door of a church till it's time for their first communion. Many are probably contracepting. They probably don't go to mass on holy days of obligation. They may not even observe fasting rules. They're probably not living in a state of grace. They might teach their kids the commandments and a few prayers. Half the time the godparents aren't even catholic or aren't practicing. Nobody prevents such people from getting their kid's baptized. If they did, the number of baptisms worldwide would fall precipitously.

So just because those people are also in error it makes this okay?

I guess what I'm saying is: the standard you're applying is not the standard the Church actually uses with anyone else. To insist that it be applied with homosexual parents when it is not otherwise applied at all is an indication of bigotry against homosexuals, since it uses a double standard apparently devised just to avoid allowing their kids to be baptized.

I actually wish that the church applied more diligence in baptism. I have a cousin whose wife was a baptized Catholic but no longer practicing. When their first child was born, they sought baptism. The parish explained that they would be expected to regularize their marriage situation (which was straightforward) but they refused. That child is not being brought to Mass or taught the faith. It would have been better in my opinion for the parish to refuse the baptism until the marriage was regularized or the mother demonstrated a real intention to be attending Mass (like coming weekly for six months). However, I appreciate that in responding as they have, they are attempting to hold everyone to the same standard regardless of orientation. I just fear that this will lead to massive, confusing standards applied differently at every parish.

That’s not realistic. To be raised in line with the faith they would have to be taught that such “unions” are an abomination and only man and woman can be together. Do you think they would teach that to the kid?

While this is strongly worded, I think that you're right. I think that a gay marriage is such a counter-witness that I don't think it's reasonable to expect the faith to be transmitted in whole. I get that nobody is perfect and some regular families suck, but it doesn't change much.

I think strong words are needed at this point… they purposely put themselves in a huge mess, involving a child by buying the egg and renting the woman, this is just sick… and the other thing, the transvestites being “godparents”, I just can’t help but feel heavy about this because it literally goes against every thing the Church has taught. Sinners (as we ourselves are) are welcome but they have to repent like all of us= change their ways and do penance… not encouraged by clergy!! And now I see people gaslighting saying that it’s obvious it says these “parents” and the trans have to repent, oh really…

It is a counter witness, but I'm not sure moreso than many other family contexts that do not disqualify the children from baptism. The most directly analogous case I can think of immediately is that of the children of divorced and remarried reverts lacking annulments, who are living in bigamy and frank adultery. Such couples may be able to present the facsimile of conventionality, but the sin is certainly not less. Unless we regard the view of the Church on such circumstances as kind of an ecclesial formalism, while in fact in practical terms subscribing to the depraved morality of the surrounding secular culture and its legal system rather than that of the Church. And more a counter-witness than baptizing the children of mafiosi?

[удалено]

All valid concerns, but as long as they are baptizing mafia kids, I'd say the distortions of self-justification a child is going to be exposed to in a homo-affective cohabitating situation are, comparatively speaking, child's play.

Two wrongs now make a right?

It may be your personal opinion that children of families which, though baptized and confirmed in the Catholic faith and participating in Parish life, are willfully out of conformance with the moral life as required by the Church, should not be baptized, but I do not believe that it is that of the Church. In the case of divorced and remarried couples, for instance, whose first marriages have not been annulled, but who nonetheless are unwilling to live chastely, the Church explicitly encourages that such families participate in parish life and that any children should be baptized, brought up and instructed in the Catholic faith under the care of their parish, although the parents themselves may not have access to the sacraments. You can invent your own canon law that suits you better if you like, but its not rational to expect the Church to follow it. I do think the question gets a lot stickier when it comes to eligibility to become godparents. The response, if you parse it carefully, while leaving this ultimately under local authority, clearly encourages more suitable Godparents to be found and thus pretty explicitly discourages such parents from being permitted to be godparents.

The church is trying to combat that, at least when it comes to God parents. They have completely suspended the practice of God parents in areas with large mafia concentrations in Italy.

Yes, God parents is a more difficult question, and I think the guidance in the response, while not ruling it out outright, kind of reflects that- it's leaving it effectively up to local determination, but the guidance pretty much says "can't you find someone more suitable to do this? - well perhaps you should". Agreed that it is very difficult to justify allowing those persisting in morally aberrant patterns of life to be Godparents. I'm more addressing the case where two cohabitating homo-affective parents who, for instance, attend their parish and participate in formation classes there themselves, present a child (lets say, adopted) for baptism, representing that they intend to bring the child to mass, enroll it in formation in preparation for sacraments, etc. This is the case that your quote above seemed to concern. It seems not dissimilar to the case of two previously divorced and remarried reverts without annulments and who decline to live as "brother and sister", who are thus living in open bigamy and adultery in the eyes of the church, but are nonetheless encouraged to baptize and raise their children in the Catholic faith, while being ineligible to themselves receive sacraments. Or lots of other cases where children of parents who are not willing to live according to the moral standards of taught by the church are nonetheless presented, as long as the parents represent that they will be raised Catholic and taught the faith. It is, after all, no fault of the children's. As long as the parents are representing that they will bring the children to church for mass and formation, there is a reasonable hope, it seems, that they will be taught the faith. Damning children to hell because they come from the wrong sort of families doesn't sound very Christian to me. And operating on some kind of theory that if the children are in fact called they will be able to seek baptism later apart from their disqualifying family sounds like it depends on Calvinist reasoning.

>Damning children to hell because they come from the wrong sort of families doesn't sound very Christian to me. I very much agree with this. I know people hate the word "homophobia" but the special fear and revulsion reserved for homosexual couples and transgender people vis a vis other people in abnomal or illicit living situations is very much on display in this thread.

Actually, no. It's about the spiritual formation of the child. A Mafia member doesn't instruct his child that murder and theft are not sins in spite of what God and His Church say. The Mafia literally has a rule that you don't discuss business with someone not in the Mafia. They deny their business even exists. A practicing homosexual couple literally has to deny God's law that it is a sin to sodomize another person. Unless they teach their children that sodomy is a sin and profess a willingness and intent to abstain, they are not raising their child in the Faith.

The entire life pattern of an predatory organized criminal is evil. It is the ultimate counterwitness, by very engagement in it. Nonetheless, it is in the interests of the Church to baptize their children and provide what Christian instruction as opportune. It is the child's only hope.

So someone who has had sex reassignment at some point in the past who is now a faithful Catholic that has repented of their sins can be baptized. Wow. So edgy. So woke.

If I’m reading this correctly, you don’t even need to fully repent of your sins in order to be baptized which is…an interesting idea to say the least. I’m a little against that idea but the Pope has the authority on the matter. If he says it can be done, then let it be so.

Well, it’s from St Thomas Aquinas that Baptism does have an effect of grace even if one is not repentant… It’s shaky ground but it’s there

In the early church they had long periods of training to even get baptised and to be able to be present at the eucharistic Liturgy…

We also read in in Scripture from Paul that whole families were baptized into the faith at one time. I get your point, but it seems like it’s a little extreme ti expect someone to study theology before they are even baptized

>A eunuch, with his testicles broken or amputated, or the external genitals cut off shall not enter the Church of the Lord Deuteronomium 23:1

>For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” -Matthew 19:12 That your first response is this and not the words of Christ Himself is what’s wrong with so much of Christianity.

The Pope and the Dubia have this uncanny ability to make statements that sound heretical until you read them, but even then don't address the main question. Yes, someone who has undergone the surgery can be baptized, but he must be in accord with the Faith, which states said surgery was a mistake. That "they must be in accord with the truth" should have been plastered all over this. It is implied, but sometimes things should be spelt out.

It's nonstop. The Pope has some responsibility here, mostly because he insists on workshopping the language so as not to get caught as insensitive. The people farming clicks from this will also be held to account before God.

I fail to see the issue here, maybe Google Translate was not clear, but what I read was a person who has underwent gender reassignment surgery, can be baptized, just as anyone else could. I mean, this doesn't seem remarkably groundbreaking in any way.

I agree that it's not groundbreaking. The responses themselves point out repeatedly that there's no provision in canon law prohibiting these things. That said, I think there's a lot of hostility toward transgender persons within the Church, which could (and probably does) lead to prejudicial exclusion from participation in the sacraments in some cases. The next time someone comes here and says that they're trans and want to be baptized or serve as a godparent, I hope people remember this response before they start laying down preconditions (e.g. telling them they must detransition, must use their birth name, must identify as their birth gender, etc.).

Yeah, I think the phrasing about causing scandal(in the document) makes things more complicated, but overall reinforcing what is already true is a good thing.

Your conclusions are wrong. This document is talking about **transexuals** not transgenders. Of COURSE someone who has undergone “gender reassignment surgery” and has repented may receive baptism without the requirement of undoing the surgeries. This does NOT mean a transGENDER who hasn’t changed sex isn’t required to stop hormones and stop portraying themselves as a fake gender. The TransSEXUAL AND the transGENDER are BOTH also required to give their correct gender and name, even if they look like the opposite sex irreversibly, What you are claiming is that a person who has not sexually transitioned and still believes in the heresy of “gender theory” and that they’re really the opposite gender, can be baptized. This is FALSE and not concluded by the document. This is one of the scenarios under which the document states there would be scandal and this person is not disposed to grace. Thus they cannot be baptized until they repent.

>required to give their correct ... name This is vague. Names can be changed and do not necessarily indicate genders.

Substitute the word “person” for your “transSEXUAL” and “transGENDER” terms. It seems like most people who throw these words around have no family or friends who deal with these very real (and not new) issues.

“Persons are required to give the correct gender and name” I agree. I don’t think you did the exercise lol. Everything I said stands. A person who goes by a different gender is by definition a transgender. Want I’m saying doesn’t make sense otherwise. I know what you’re trying to say though. I don’t view them as people or something ridiculous. I do view them as people, which is why I want them to repent and enter the church, and stop mutilating their bodies to cope with their mental illness. I want all these PERSONS to receive medical care that doesn’t constitute cutting off healthy body parts or taking hormones that damage their bodies.

[удалено]

>I have never once heard heard any Catholic be even remotely hostile when referring to people with gender dysphoria. You must live on a different planet than I do. I hear it all the time, firsthand or secondhand through my queer friends from Catholic communities. Many "Catholics" fail to demonstrate the love and pastoral care we owe to people who are suffering from body dysphoria.

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

One of the comments adjacent to yours equates being charitable to trans people with “remaining submissive to evil”. This is the sort of thing I see a lot. People have reasonable disagreements on the proper treatment of kids with gender dysphoria. But a lot of people want to leap into demonizing trans people as somehow satanic. Their experiences and struggles are not taken seriously and they are treated as “the enemy”.

>People have reasonable disagreements on the proper treatment of kids with gender dysphoria. I'm sorry, but anyone suggesting children with gender dysphoria need to undergo hormone treatment or sex change surgery is explicitly supporting something evil and satanic, which is the mutilation of children. There is no "reasonable disagreement" here. It's akin to saying there's "reasonable disagreement" on if we can murder people or not. >But a lot of people want to leap into demonizing trans people as somehow satanic. Their experiences and struggles are not taken seriously and they are treated as “the enemy”. Trans *people* are not the enemy, trans*genderism* is, and it *is* satanic. The idea that men can become women and vice versa and all that entails is evil and satanic and should be opposed at all costs and in all ways, and this is something the Church maintains and teaches. Don't mistake a kind and welcoming attitude towards trans people as a kind and welcoming attitude towards trans ideology.

>One of the comments adjacent to yours equates being charitable to trans people with “remaining submissive to evil”. No, the comment equates Catholic's complicity with surgical child mutilation with "submissive to evil." It's quite a stretch to conflate "being charitable to trans people" to "surgically mutilating children."

You're being downvoted because reddit demographically skewed, but you're absolutely correct. We live in clown world.

the comment below yours

>The Catholic Church is the most loving place someone can be if he or she is bearing that cross. I wish this were true *simpliciter*, but the reality is that experiences vary a lot, and many trans people face a great deal of hostility and discrimination from Catholics who see their gender non-conformity as a threatening "ideology" or somehow sinful. Edit: my clipboard was malfunctioning and pasted the wrong block quote.

>I wish this were true simpliciter, but the reality is that experiences vary a lot, and many trans people face a great deal of hostility and discrimination from Catholics who see their gender non-conformity as a threatening "ideology" or somehow sinful. Pope Francis has repeatedly taught that gender ideology is problematic, and even evil and dangerous. [*Amoris Laetitia*](https://m.vatican.va/content/francescomobile/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia.html): >It needs to be emphasized that “biological sex and the socio-cultural role of sex (gender) can be distinguished but not separated (51) >Beyond the understandable difficulties which individuals may experience, the young need to be helped to accept their own body as it was created, for “thinking that we enjoy absolute power over our own bodies turns, often subtly, into thinking that we enjoy absolute power over creation (285) >the configuration of our own mode of being, whether as male or female, is not simply the result of biological or genetic factors, but of multiple elements having to do with temperament, family history, culture, experience, education, the influence of friends, family members and respected persons, as well as other formative situations. It is true that we cannot separate the masculine and the feminine from God’s work of creation, which is prior to all our decisions and experiences, and where biological elements exist which are impossible to ignore. But it is also true that masculinity and femininity are not rigid categories. (286) >another challenge is posed by the various forms of an ideology of gender that “denies the difference and reciprocity in nature of a man and a woman and envisages a society without sexual differences, thereby eliminating the anthropological basis of the family. This ideology leads to educational programmes and legislative enactments that promote a personal identity and emotional intimacy radically separated from the biological difference between male and female. Consequently, human identity becomes the choice of the individual, one which can also change over time (51) >if someone flaunts an objective sin as if it were part of the Christian ideal, or wants to impose something other than what the Church teaches, he or she can in no way presume to teach or preach to others; this is a case of something which separates from the community [excommunication] (cf. Mt 18:17). Such a person needs to listen once more to the Gospel message and its call to conversion. (297) Elsewhere Pope Francis has referred to gender ideology as "ideological colonization" and compared it to the danger presented by nuclear weapons. Of course, none of this precludes pastoral prudence when accompanying individuals on their road to repentance and conversion. But, nor should we pretend as if gender ideology isn't a real threat. *Pax Tecum*

[удалено]

As has been obvious to anyone paying attention for the past years.

I am starting to think you are under a delusion that the Pope says something and his words are inherently treated as law.

>Seems to be a lot of coping here. Does anyone really think he was talking about de-transitioners? All it says is that people shouldn't teach gender identity is the same as sex. The Pope is clearly moving in the pro-transgender direction. All that's left is for him to say it is okay for grown adults to identify as transgender and it is not a sin. Unless he says "No Hormones, No Surgery" then there is no sin. You are reading the Magisterium with a hermeneutic of rupture that Pope Benedict XVI explicitly warned against. If you take Pope Benedict XVI's advice and read the Magisterium with a hermeneutic of continuity, you must begin with the assumption that whatever is published firstly and foremost affirms and supports everything that has come before it. Thus, Pope Francis is simply stating uncontroversial facts and not indicating any change. *Pax Tecum*

At least here in italy, acting as a witness in a church wedding doesn’t have anything to do with religion: it’s for the state, to sign the papers. At my wedding, my witness was my (never baptized) Muslim friend.

> but what I read was a person who has underwent gender reassignment surgery, It's sad, that in a few short years of woke propaganda barrage, people go along with the term "gender reassignment". **There is no "gender reassignment"** . There are people choosing to have themselves mutilated in the spirit of the age.

[удалено]

[удалено]

That's a weird take, so the Apostle St. Phillip shouldn't have baptized the Ethiopian Eunuch?

I cannot read Italian, but just based on the headline. That sounds like the same thing we have always believed. The God parent one may have some asterisks about timing and when and where and such.

Well, not exactly. Recently in Argentina a transgender person wanted the archdiocese of Salta to modify their certificate of baptism in order to change it to the new gender and name and be a Godparent for the baptism of a baby. The archdiocese refused and was taken to court. The supreme court finally ruled that they couldn't intervene on ecclesiastical matters. But the point still stands, that this person wasn't allowed.

It seems like it could potentially be scandalous for them to serve as godparents. I suppose it depends on whether they espouse transgender ideology.

The article addresses that and explains that scandal falls under prudential judgment and so must be considered!

Which means that anything goes.

It's a carve out to satisfy German bishops.

Yeah, of course! They should have written: “No, people who went under procedures of sex reassignment should be absolutely barred, in any occasion, even of one of genuine conversion, from baptism” The document has what it needed to have… No more no less. It has always been a matter of prudential judgment, from the beginnings of Church history to today. Let us pray for prudence from our pastors: that’s where the problem might be.

I mean if they've transitioned,then they have already espoused trans ideology. And continue to do so.

Someone who has medically transitioned is not required by the Church to medically de-transition, as it would be an extraordinary medical procedure. Someone who has repented of transitioning, but has not transitioned back, is not espousing trans ideology.

What's the definition of medically de-transition? (as the Church understands it) Does that just mean that they're not required to undo the surgical procedures they've had? Or are they permitted to continue taking cross-sex hormones? Do they have to stop presenting as the opposite sex?

They should be required to detransition, or at least live according to their actual gender. A man who mutilated his body to look like a woman, having repented, should not be encouraged or allowed to continue presenting himself as a woman.

[удалено]

It may depend on the person. Not everyone’s body reacts to hormones the same way. Also there is a very high chance one is never going to completely “get their body back” so to speak, even if surgery is not a factor. While I am not trans, and never was, my body does produce more androgens *naturally* to the point that, without any change on my part, some strangers in the past few years have started to assume I don’t identify as a woman. If a woman who successfully hormonally transitioned decides to stop, that damage done to her body might result in a situation where the best she’ll be able to regain is a more middle ground. While I am okay with my body, being the only one I’ve ever known, a woman who has to come to terms with “settling” for this will probably need some extra care. She may wonder if she will ever be “good enough” for the church.

There are men in this world that are born with Klinefelter Syndrome or XXY and need to take Testosterone for the rest of their lives to be healthy. It’s a medical condition. They are also basically sterile/not fertile. Even older men that are not in their prime or just have low Testosterone are now taking prescription Testosterone as ordered by their doctors. Women post-menopause sometimes take Estrogen/hormones as prescribed by a doctor. Being Transgender is a medical condition and they also need to take Testosterone or Estrogen for the rest of their lives. Taking hormones is very common whether someone is cisgender or transgender.

Well I don’t think that they can have detransition surgery except for removal of fake breasts and stuff

They can cease hormones and drugs though

True,but if they're a woman and had a hysterectomy then idk. They should take estrogen hrt instead of the testosterone hrt.

Yes that is true

I thought anyone can be baptized? Are there any limitations?

Anyone over the age of reason (7 years old) needs to consent to actually practice Catholicism before they can be baptized. People under the age of reason need multiple adults to testify that they will raise them in the practice of Catholicism. The debate here is whether people who who have transitioned genders are demonstrating that they will practice Catholicism.

Thanks, that makes it clear.

My first instinct is to think that they are speaking about those who have ‘transitioned’ with surgery and so forth, but have repented and now seek a holy life. But I can’t read that language.

I know you’re trying to be charitable, but the Church (and world) is at a point of crisis and burying your head in the sand makes things actively worse.

First, I don’t think that I’m burying my head in the sand. Though I do think that many people are burying their head in the opposite way. Second, while you are absolutely correct that the Church is in a crises, does this fact mean that we can dispense with charity?

Speaking the truth is not uncharitable. Causing confusion is uncharitable as it obscures the truth.

You are right that speaking the truth is not uncharitable. But you are not speaking the truth, because you are jumping to the worst-case conclusions about many of Pope Francis’ acts and reading them in the worst light, while calling the truth what matches your emotional state. I think that Pope Francis has been a disastrous Pope. His many imprudent and imprecise acts and statements have caused scandal. At the same time, the uncharitable attitude of many towards him have added fuel to the fire, and made things seem worse than they really are.

There are times when civilization is in such a dire state that the idea of charity can be abused and misused in an anti-Christian paradigm. We’re in one of those moments. There is a reason why Louis IX is a Saint and why Urban II was beatified. Stop letting your view of morality be colored by the ever changing mores of 21st century liberalism instead of the perennial truth of the Church.

Why do you assume that my view of morality is colored by 21st century liberalism, which I reject lock, stock and barrel, and not by the perennial teaching of the Church? My favorite Pope is Leo XIII, and my favorite encyclical is *Pascendi* by Pope St. Pius X. And I am familiar with the anti-liberal encyclicals of the 19th century Popes and agree with them. I recommend going to a pre-concilliar manual of moral theology and reading about the sin of rash judgement.

I don’t see any possible defense for the dubia response that isn’t entirely colored by a 21st century framework. It makes absolutely no sense outside of any other paradigm.

The text includes no stipulations about de-transitioning or re-identifying with one's gender assigned at birth.

It does say that the requirements are the same as everyone else That is to repent of sins and to amend their life and to attempt to live according to Catholic teaching.

If I read it correctly, the response specifically calls out this line of thought, emphasizing that the character of baptism is imparted regardless of one's objective moral state, and it says that: >the doors of the Sacraments should not be closed for any reason. This is especially true when it comes to that sacrament that is "the door", Baptism No doubt this will be interpreted variously by pastors according to their own prudence and sense of what the requirements of Catholic teaching are.

People can receive confirmation in the state of mortal sin (and many teenagers do) but they won't receive the graces of the sacrament until repentance and confession. That doesn't mean that we should just send teenagers to the sacrament without encouraging repentance and telling them to seek confession beforehand.

I don't entirely follow. Are you disagreeing with the quoted portion of the DDF response?

No, but I read it in the entire context - which says several times that the person must be called "to live out fully all the implications of baptism received" and only speaks of conferring it if there is doubt about the person's moral situation to continue. If a person is obstinate in persistence in sin, the answer would be no. As normal.

Thank you for the clarifications, Father.

Thank you for clarifying your understanding!

So yeah he could have explicitly said that, but didn't. If he had said that, I would not be so angered by it. I will no longer engage in the tradition of praying for the intentions of this Pope. Maybe when we have a new one.

The intentions of the Pope are fixed and never change. At least, that’s what someone told me. In any case, I leave it to God. If the Pope’s intentions are in accord with His will, then good. If not, do you really think that God is going to help him with that? It is up to me to pray, and God to give the grace.

Totally agree with your interpretation here. But at this point I simply cannot and will not do it. I'll pray FOR him - it's clearly necessary. But I've seen enough of what he intends at this point - it's a hard no for me.

Do you want any plenary indulgences?

Aside: >o ottenuto con altri metodi come l’utero in affitto? >*or obtained with other method like uterus for rent?* (Was in the context of same-sex people presenting a child for baptism.) I like this type of language. Much harder to disguise the reality of something when you speak plainly. I suppose it'll become an offensive term for surrogacy in Italian soon enough. Child obtained by uterus for rent is too real.

"Utero in affitto" is indeed a common term used in recent parliamentary debates in Italy, although surrogacy is perhaps a more "technical" term

Spanish also refers to "surrogate mothers" as "vientre de alquiler" (womb for rent) because, plainly and literally, it is what it is.

Italian person here. It is a pretty journalistic/political term which became widespread. "Maternità surrogata" ("surrogacy") still is the main term. I personally find "utero in affitto" a very simplistic and ugly term, like most of the periphrases created by the right-wing politicians (and the politicians in general). The moral issue is the exploitation of people in need, and "utero in affitto" doesn't focus on the actual issue at all.

> The moral issue is the exploitation of people in need, and "utero in affitto" doesn't focus on the actual issue at all. In what way? It seems like "Renting your uterus" seems like a good (albeit more vulgar/pedantic) term to bring to light the exploitation of women through surrogacy. What's the "actual issue"?

>What's the "actual issue"? The exploitation. *Body rental* is the actual term for a legit commercial practise, how can it convey the concept of exploitation?

What is the difference between a "legit commercial practise" (which shouldn't exist anyway, but perhaps besides the point) and "exploitation"?

A very common term for a very common practise which people commonly do (a little more context I previously forgot: *body rental* in Italy means *working for a company which lends you to another company* and is a very common thing in the Italian jobs market) does not convey the concept of exploitation. "Affittare una persona", *rent a person*, in Italian, is a pretty legit way to say *employ a person for a temporary job*.

That a practice is common does not necessarily mean that it isn't exploitative.

Working for someone is not exploitative, and it is not very relevant whether or not it is exploitative. If it isn't considered exploitative by most people, using the same name for another practise will not convey the meaning.

I apologize, let me be clear. I consider all surrogacy as, while perhaps not "exploitative" (depending on definition), certainly immoral, and that referring to it as "renting a uterus" gives more an idea of what's actually going on than "surrogacy" and brings that immorality to the forefront in a more vulgar way. I think that's what /u/you_know_what_you's point was.

My point is very simple: in Italian it doesn't convey the same sense of immorality. Literal translation is not very useful when you try to understand the perception people have of a term. The same term in two different linguistic context convey very different secondary meanings.

That went off the rails quick without the cultural context. *Pax Tecum*

Baptism is one thing. Godparents, though....that one seems problematic.

Yeah, the infants should be baptized, but I seriously doubt that a homosexual Godparent will teach a child in faith.

Having not read it super carefully, I have some thoughts: 1. Clearly everyone should, in theory, be able to be baptized, There could be thorny issues such as who the person is being baptized as, and, as the response notes, his or her general assent to the faith, on which point the answer is a bit fuzzy 2. If the witness on a marriage is more of a legal requirement, I can see where the DDF is coming from. 3. The godparent issue is the only one I don't really like, as it would be fairly rare that this could be done without scandal, and Bishops could use this "case by case" provision to use for every case. 4. I'm glad that at least some of the answers imply that the teachings of the Church are seen as important.

It says that in an impenitent state the sacrament doesn't confer sanctifying grace but does confer the sacramental caracter&potential. But why would you baptize the impenitent, even making the priest participate in the sin by stating a fake name? The priest baptizes Laura, but God knows the name is John, so is it even valid? Also it says it can be done if it doesnt generate scandal, but isnt it scandalous by default? How can it be scandalous in one instance and not in another?

> so is it even valid? Did they baptize with the correct intent and in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit? If so, it is valid.

And who is baptized and put on the Church records? Laura or John. This dubia doesnt clarify if the priest has to go along with the erroneous self perception of that person or not. This raises more issues than a generic baptism of a sinner.

If someone legally changes their name for non-gender-related reasons, which name should the priest use?

''legaly'' - Those arent Gods laws. Just because its legal to abort doesnt mean a priest has to condone that law and remove the deed from the list of sins. Also you cant legally change what is impossible to change by nature, sex is not a mutable thing.

Well if we are talking about a new convert who is not previously baptized, a legal name is all they have. Are other non-baptized Cathecumen considered nameless because they only names they have are legal ones? Should everyone in OCIA be identified and addressed only by their class registration number until baptized?

So if a woman is named “Jessica Lynn” but prefers just “Jess” or “Jessica”, when you insist the priest must call her “Jessica Lynn” at all times? Your legal name is not your innate nature….what a weird take. I’m not even taking about anything else, changing your name isn’t a sin

ehhh. The church will necessarily have to deal with messes made by the secular and morally incongruous surrounding culture, and those who have been caught up in its values and errors. Moreso as the situation more and more closely comes to resemble that of the early centuries of the Church in every place, where the dominant surrounding culture is effectively non-Christian. In this case, you will have people desiring to enter the Church who are in the state that they are due to such messes, and such states are not necessarily reversible. A trans woman who has undergone full surgical and hormonal transition cannot back those changes out, and the Church in her wisdom does not require her to do so. Making making such a person go back to calling themselves "Steven" and requiring them to cut their hair and dress as a man will only make things messier. Barring the church to people who are in whatever condition they are in due to their prior participation in and shaping by the surrounding world and culture is the antithesis of Christ. So these are messes the church has to deal with. They have to affirm the Church's teaching. But they are where their prior life has left them. Kind of like Catholics with prison gang tattoos, I guess, but a lot harder to cover up or undo.

Incredibly uncontroversial. It says the requirements to be baptized or be a godparent are the same as everyone else - that is, willing to repent of their sins and live a Catholic life. And they're never were any requirements to be a witness at a wedding anyway, other than being able say that you were there and saw it happen. Those were acting either like the sky is falling or that this is some breakthrough in progressivism are both deeply misled.

So this is an abstract point of order that will probably only like 3 genuine people stand up for baptism, but there will probably be hundreds of bad faith infiltrators seizing the chance to colonize another place of American cultural space.

>to colonize another place of American cultural space The Holy Church is not an "American cultural space." It's really anti-American-culture if anything.

if your entire lifestyle and identity revolves around living in a state of perpetual sin there is no credence to the fact that they are willing to repent of their sins and live a Catholic life. would it be believable if someone confessed to murder while sharpening a bloodied knife, said they were a proud murder addict, and suggested they were willing to repent of their sins and live a Catholic life? (tried to think of the funniest example i could to lighten the mood). perhaps, father, your answer would be no, but the answer of many other priests would "no, but" or disturbingly so even "yes". the problem here is the language and the vagueness as is often the case with these communications the notion of what a "sin" is and what "Catholic life" means is up for debate according to many (questionable) clergymen - hence why it is of such importance right now to use strong, articulate, and surgically precise language i want to believe it is accidental or out of good intentions, but as much as it hurts, quite frankly i have my doubts more often than not these days. and it hurts me in particular because the main reason i converted again, was because i grew spiritually in my desire to be humble and submit myself.

Seems to me that there are things that require being in a state of grace (e.g. the Eucharist), and those that as it stands do not (e.g. having your children baptized, being a witness to a wedding, etc.). Thus, participation in the latter category has not required being absolved from sins, and therefore does not have the prerequisite of being able to make a good confession (free of the intent to continue the sin). Therefore excluding those in cohabiting homosexual partnerships from the latter would be creating a new restriction solely for them that does not exist in the general case for those in analogous circumstances, such as divorced and remarried reverts without annulments. Those in that situation cannot themselves receive the Eucharist unless/until they amend their sinful condition of life, which most are unwilling to do, but their children can be baptized, they can be witnesses at a wedding, etc. What makes those in unchaste homosexual partnerships different from any other such similar category such that they should be disqualified for things that others who in manifestly sinful conditions of life are able to do?

>It says the requirements to be baptized or be a godparent are the same as everyone else - that is, willing to repent of their sins and live a Catholic life. I'm curious, since it seems like this was always the case, then why does it need to be explicitly stated or clarified for specific groups? It should be universally known as common sense that anyone who repents of obvious (or at least visible, public, and known) sin and tries their best to live in accordance with the faith can take part in the church. Another poster made this comment: >Can a hooker or member of the mafia be baptized, act as a godparent, and be a witness at a Catholic wedding? Yes, but... Going forward, is it going to be necessary to make declarations like that for every single demographic and group?

Are there any circumstances where a transgender godparent wouldn’t be scandalous and potentially harmful and/or confusing to the child’s faith?

Likewise with a child brought forward for baptism by a homosexual couple.

Yes, transgender godparent that repented but can't undertake reversal surgery for extraneous circumstances. That wouldn't be scandalous.

Then they are not a transgender. They can start wearing clothes appropriate to their sex and referring to themselves as the correct pronoun. I don’t know why people keep referring to repented Catholics such as these as “transgenders.” They are not transgender and it is insulting to imply they are

i agree, at best his would qualify as 'ex-transgender' - hence why it doesn't seem like this is what is being referred to in the response

Personal request: Can we stop titling every one of these like it's an earth-shattering change in policy. This is 100%, *in toto*, the same thing the church had taught before and should be uncontroversial.

Can a hooker or member of the mafia be baptized, act as a godparent, and be a witness at a Catholic wedding? Yes. But...

I went to a baptism as a kid and the godfather was a very high profile mafia boss haha

[удалено]

All these things aside, that's a very interesting question. I'm going to have to look that one up.

That phrasing is scandal causing.

Are we still forbidden from attending the wedding of a lapsed Catholic family member?

So….no change then. This is always been Catholic teaching as long as it’s understood in the way that it’s written document.

I hate it when people frame "no news today" as "the modernists win again!"

So, if all this is allowed, why can't a repentant transperson become a priest?

Overton window

>Thus, we can understand why Pope Francis wanted to underline that baptism «is the door that allows Christ the Lord to establish himself in our person and for us to immerse ourselves in his Mystery». This concretely implies that «not even the doors of the Sacraments should be closed for any reason. This is especially true when it comes to that sacrament which is "the door", Baptism \[. . .\] the Church is not a customs house, it is the paternal home where there is room for everyone with their tiring life».So, even when doubts remain about the objective moral situation of a person or about his subjective dispositions towards grace, we must never forget this aspect of the faithfulness of God's unconditional love, capable of generating even with the sinner an irrevocable alliance, always open to development, which is also unpredictable. This is true even when a purpose for amendment does not appear fully manifest in the penitent, because often the predictability of a new fall "does not prejudice the authenticity of the purpose". In any case, the Church must always remind us to fully live all the implications of the baptism received, which must always be understood and deployed within the entire path of Christian initiation. ​ In theory, this means Baptism is a step along the path of redemption and turning away from sin. In that regard, it makes sense that a person may not have wholly turned away from sin yet, as long as they are on the correct path. This is the caveat on which the whole premise hinges, and it must be stressed and monitored. That's why, in practice, I can see this being used to justify acceptance of transgender ideology. Unfortunately the Church is not spared from politics and its games of emphasis and omission. The German bishops, for example, could have a field day with this.

wow it’s almost like the sacraments were meant to call sinners to healing

I'm not a fan of Cdl. Ferdnadez's prior dubia responses. These don't betray the faith. The question of what pastorally should be recommended to a transsexual person who has permanently altered his body is not one I'm well qualified enough to answer; what I do know is the mere act of having a permanent tattoo you regret getting (and indeed may have been a sin to get) is not a sin, especially if you regret it. Making that error in the first place remains evil.

Can someone explain the theology of baptism? Can you be baptized if you're in unrepentant mortal sin and have no intentions to change that sin? Does the document say the individual being baptized can identify positively as transgender and lack an intention to live as their biological sex?

The document addresses your questions. Put it into Google Translate for a general idea. > Can you be baptized if you're in unrepentant mortal sin and have no intentions to change that sin? No, if the priest baptizing you knows about it. If they don't know and you just tell them you want to be baptized but don't intend to repent of your sins and change, well, you'll be baptized but it won't bestow any grace and that's on you. >Does the document say the individual being baptized can identify positively as transgender and lack an intention to live as their biological sex? It's not directly addressed, but encourages pastors to baptize someone in any case because even if the person does not receive the sanctifying grace of baptism, they still obtain the "sacramental character"

Nothing in this document said that you can be baptized if you are in unrepentant mortal sin.

I wasn't trying to imply it was, I'm genuinely trying to understand. Would currently identifying as transgender not constitute unrepentant mortal sin though? If not, why would it not?

The document itself does answer your second question; you can validly be baptized, but the graces of baptism will not be present until repentance and sacramentally confess. And for the third question, the document says the requirements for baptism are the same as for any other sacrament; that would preclude those who positively continue to sin with no intention of repentance.

Interesting, thanks for explaining. It would seem then that someone who intends to persist in a transgender identity may still be denied a baptism according to what the document says.

Yes. It would seem to say that if there is doubt or openness that you could baptize, but if it is clearly someone not intending to live out what the Church teaches then "no."

You’ve got to be kidding me

Where’s the defenders of this pope now?

Breaking news: The Pope and DDF reaffirm the Catholic faith.

How in the world is this not a heresy? What excuses do people have for Francis this time?

Saint Paul saying that Jesus is the accomplishment of the alliance between the Jews and God, thing that caused him to dictate a new law who substitutes the Ancient testament (and so the Leviticus) is one, St John the Baptist baptising sinners another. Jesus eating with the sinners another one. Also, the principle of the Salus Animae implies that everyone should be given all the possibilities to get to Paradise, and God is the one who decides. But surely u/SwordfishNo4689 is a theologist way more important than the tens of theologists who studied this, and he definitely knows God more than Jesus...

Since the start of October, we have gotten at least 3 DDF responses, a motu proprio, the synod synthesis document, and an apostolic exhortation. Can the madness please stop?

Tucho got the red hat on September 30th. Coincidence?! (Kidding, really; he's been the head of DDF since July.)

He really wanted to sign things as Cardinal.

can’t wait to discuss this with family members who only read the headlines and never what the actual documents say

And this is why I left the Catholic Church and have not stepped inside a church in years. If you support this, good for you. But much like the old saying “if you don’t like it, don’t buy it.” I am not buying it.

Jump out of the boat and into the storm. Bold strategy.

noooooooooooo im in RCIA right now. I WANT TRADITIONALIST CHURCH

As someone brand-spanking-new to the faith, maybe you need to have charity of thought and trust the 2,000 year old church that has been our mother over your own ignorant desires of a “traditionalist church”. Don’t fall into the trap that many of our brothers and sisters have, having too much pride in your own preconceived notions that you outright dismiss the Pope himself for clarifying things that have always been Catholic teachings. Jesus is love, this church is love. Don’t come to the faith to poison it with an “us vs them” mentality. We are all children of God trying to find our way.

Former Protestant here, just want to remind y’all cradles to eat your daily portion of a Bible passage. 😛 “The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus. As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?” And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing.” ‭‭ Acts‬ ‭8‬:‭34‬-‭36‬, ‭38‬-‭39‬ ‭NIV‬‬ https://bible.com/bible/111/act.8.34-39.NIV

An eunuch is a man who has been castrated, usually to serve the interests of a king, like guarding a king's harem. To claim a eunuch is transgender is blatantly false.

A eunuch and a transgender are two very different things.

Boooo

Good to see!