LGBT and the Catholic Doctrine
– a contribution to a better inclusion of LGBT people to the Catholic Church
Luke S. OGASAWARA (Lacanian psychoanalyst, pro-LGBT activist, co-founder of the LGBT Catholic Japan)
Summary :
The foundation of
the Catholic Church is God’s love that excludes nobody but includes everybody. On
that standpoint of the all-inclusive love of God we develop in the present
paper some critical arguments against traditional prejudices of the Catholic
Church on sexual minority. And we add some Lacanian discussions on this subject.
Table of contents
§ 1. Introduction
§ 2. Traditional attitudes of the Catholic Church towards
LGBT people
§ 2.1. Traditional attitudes of the Catholic Church towards
homosexuality
§ 2.2. Opinions of the Catholic Church about transgenderism
§ 3. The new pastoral orientation of Pope Francis for
homosexual people
§ 4. Prejudices of the Catholic Church about LGBT problems
§ 4.1. Homosexuality as we understand it now
§ 4.2. Homosexuality and the Bible
§ 4.2.1. Problems of sexual acts between men in the Old
Testament
§ 4.2.2. Problems of sexual acts between same-sex persons in
the New Testament
§ 4.3. Homosexual relationships believed to be mere pleasure-seeking
without possible procreation
§ 4.4. The myth of complementarity between both sexes
§ 4.5. The question of « the truth of one’s own sex » posed
by the transgenderism
§ 5. Conclusion
§ 1. Introduction
The
Bible says « so God created man in his own image, in the image of God he
created him ; male and female he created them », but doesn’t tells us what a
man is and what a woman is in their essentiality. There is only supposed a naïve gender binarism of human being.
In fact the reality of human sexuality can not be
reduced to such a naïveness : there exist varieties of sexual minority, such as
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer, etc.
To
simplify accronymic appellation, we’d like to use here the word LGBT for all the possible varieties of
sexual minority on the supposition that the term transgender can mean « beyond the gender binarism ».
And
we presume here also that the category of LGBT excludes paedophilic
homosexuality which implies possibilities of child sexual abuse. Paedophilia is
a psychiatric disorder, while LGBTs as such are not belonging to any psychopathological
condition.
§ 2. Traditional attitudes of the Catholic Church towards LGBT people
§
2.1. Traditional attitudes of the Catholic Church towards homosexual persons
Traditional
opinions of the Catholic Church on the subject of homosexuality are resumed in
the paragraph nº 2357 of the Catechism of
the Catholic Church (CCC) :
Homosexuality refers
to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or
predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a
great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its
psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred
Scripture which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition
has always declared that « homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered ». They
are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life.
They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under
no circumstances can they be approved.
And
in the next paragraph nº 2358, they say :
The number of men and
women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This
inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a
trial. Their homosexual conditon is not of their own choice. They must be
accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust
discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to
fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the
sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their
condition.
An important remark : the phrase
« Ils ne choisissent pas leur condition homosexuelle » [ Their homosexual
conditon is not of their own choice ] which you can read in the French edition
of the CCC is omitted in the English version presented at the web site of the
Holy See.
In fact no one – neither
heterosexuals nor persons of sexual minority – can choose intentionally one’s
own sexuality which is a given existential condition for anyone.
We must underline that fact to
refute prejudiced arguments saying LGBT conditions are problems of taste or preference.
Anyway,
if you read the two consecutive paragraphs quoted above, you cannot but conclude
that the Catholic Church will accept homosexual persons only to condemn them
irredeemably for their sexuality so that they can find no possibility of salvation
in the Catholic Church.
§
2.2. Opinions of the Catholic Church about transgenderism
Most
of conservative Christians have opinion that medical procedures of sex
reassignment are inadmissible because they mutilate or modify unjustifiedly the
human body given by God so that they are blasphemous to the divine creation.
Till
now the Catholic Church has formulated no general judgement on the subject of transgenderism
and sex reassignment treatments.
We
know only one case of transsexual person to whom Vatican addressed this
official condemnation : « the transsexual behavior reveals publicly an attitude
opposite to the moral requirement of solving one’s own problem of sexual
identity according to the truth of one’s own
sex » [ emphasized by the quoter ].
This
is the case of Mr Alexander Salinas, a transsexual man, that is, he was born female
ontically, but is a man ontologically.
He underwent SRS for treatment of this ontological dissociation of his
sexuality.
In
July 2015, his sisters asked him to be godfather for their sons, and he was
willing to assume the rôle in the baptismal ceremony for
his nephews. But the parish priest didn’t allow him to do so.
This problem induced a lot of debates in Spanish media
so that Bishop Rafael Zornoza Boy of the diocese of Cádiz and Ceuta consulted
the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) . The judgement in the
name of Cardinal Gerhard Müller, Prefect of the CDF, was published in the
official communiqué of Bishop Zornoza dated the 1st September 2015 :
As
quoted above, the cardinal said Mr Salinas cannot be admitted as godparent of
his nephews because « his transsexual behavior reveals publicly an attitude
opposite to the moral requirement of solving his own problem of sexual identity
according to the truth of his own sex
».
This
negative answer of Vatican induced a breakaway of Mr Salinas from the Catholic
Church – as a matter of course, because the Church didn’t recognize the truth of his sex.
§ 3. The new pastoral orientation of Pope Francis for homosexual people
Though
he daren’t go so far as blessing same-sex marriage to avoid an irremediable schism
within the Catholic Church, Pope Francis has been presenting since his election
to the Holy See much more inclusive orientation of pastoral care for homosexual
persons.
His
first words on the subject of homosexuality he uttered in the press conference
during the return flight from Rio de Janeiro the 28th July 2013 are well known
:
« Se
una persona è gay e cerca il Signore e ha buona volontà, ma chi sono io per
giudicarla ? »
[ If someone is gay
and is searching for the Lord and has good will, then who am I to judge him ? ]
In
the interview published in a Jesuite review La
Civilità Cattolica in August 2013, Pope Francis developed a bit more :
« Se
una persona omosessuale è di buona volontà ed è in cerca di Dio, io non sono
nessuno per giudicarla. (...) Una volta una persona, in maniera provocatoria,
mi chiese se approvavo l’omosessualità. Io allora le risposi con un’altra
domanda : ‹ Dimmi : Dio, quando guarda a una persona omosessuale, ne approva
l’esistenza con affetto o la respinge condannandola ? › Bisogna sempre
considerare la persona. Qui entriamo nel mistero dell’uomo. Nella vita Dio
accompagna le persone, e noi dobbiamo accompagnarle a partire dalla loro
condizione. Bisogna
accompagnare con misericordia. »
[ If a homosexual
person is of good will and is in search of God, I am no one to judge him. (...)
One day a person asked me in a provocative manner if I approve homosexuality. I
responded to him with another question : « Tell me : when God looks at a
homosexual person, does He approve his existence with affection or reject him with
condemnation ? » We must always respect the person as he is. That is, we have
to do with the mystery of human being. God accompanies people in their life,
and we must accompany them according to their condition. We must accompany them
with mercy ].
We
see that Pope Francis displaced the emphasis away from the nº 2357 of the CCC onto
the nº 2358. Only with that he has brought to LGBT people in the whole world bright
hope of salvation.
We
would say that the principle of Francis’ pastoral orientation is the
christocentrism which has on the centre of the doctrine the all-inclusive love of
God who accompanies each of us mercifully, in a clear difference to the legalism
which can be sometimes cruel and merciless in its rigid universalism.
Then,
in the paragraph nº 250 of his second Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia published in April 2016,
Pope Francis says this :
The Church makes her
own the attitude of the Lord Jesus, who offers his boundless love to each
person without exception. During the Synod, we discussed the situation of
families who are living the experience of having inside persons with homosexual
tendency, a situation that is not easy either for parents or for children. We would
like before all else to reaffirm that every person, regardless of sexual
orientation, ought to be respected in his or her dignity and to be welcomed
with respect, with care of avoiding « any mark of unjust discrimination » (CCC
nº 2358) and particularly any form of aggression and violence. In regard of such
families it is important to assure them that we will accompany them in order
that those who manifest the homosexual tendency can receive the assistance they
need to understand and fully carry out God’s will in their lives.
Thus
in that official document he affirmed formally what he said in the interviews
quoted above.
And
more recently, on the 26th June 2016, Pope Francis said in the press conference
during the return flight from Armenia that Christians should seek forgiveness
from homosexual people for the manner they had treated them.
To
the journalist who asked him what he thinks of the remarks of Cardinal Reinhard
Marx who said that the Catholic Church should apologise to gay people for
having marginalised them and of a possible responsibility of the Church for the
hatred towards homosexuals, Pope Francis answered :
I will repeat what I
said during my first trip [ to Rio de Janeiro in July 2013 ], and I also repeat
what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, namely that they should not be
discriminated against, that they should be shown respect and given pastoral
assistance. (...)
If the problem is
that a person is so inclined [ that is, homosexual ], and with good will seeks
God, who are we to judge him or her ? We should be helpful to them, in
accordance with the teaching of the Catechism. (...)
I think that the
Church should apologize not only to those who are gay and have been offended,
but also to the poor, to women and to children exploited in the workplace, and
for having blessed so many weapons.
The Church should
apologize for all the times she has not acted.
And when I say « the
Church », I mean Christians. The Church is holy, we are sinners ! (...)
As
Christians we should apologize over and over again. Forgiveness and not only
excuses ! « Forgive me, Lord ! » These are words we forget to say. (...)
We are all saints
because we have the Holy Spirit in us, but we are all of us sinners. Myself
first. (...) Not just apologies, but forgiveness !
Thus
we see that Pope Francis has raised in front of the Catholic Church the
standard of christocentrism which welcomes into the all-inclusive love of God
everybody without exception, in defiance of legalistic condemnation of
homosexuality which has been traditional in the doctrine.
We’d
like to make our own this attitude of Pope Francis who rejects any
discrimination and any hatred.
Only
he has not yet discussed officially problems posed by transgenderism, and on
the subject of the same-sex marriage he has done nothing more than reiterating
the conservative negative opinion.
We’d
like to pray for our Church so that she may stay always faithful to the love of
God who excludes nobody but includes everybody.
§ 4. Prejudices of the Catholic Church about LGBT problems
As
far as the Catholic Church continues her traditional condemnation of
homosexuality and her disappoval of medical treatments for sex reassignment,
she continues inevitably alienating LGBT people from possibilities of salvation
offered by our Lord. Is it in accordance with the all-inclusive love of God ? No,
evidently.
So
we’d like to point out some persistent prejudices of the Catholic doctrine as
regards LGBT problems :
1)
the sexual behaviours between same-sex persons condemned in the Bible are not
those of homosexual couples ;
2)
those who disapprove homosexuality by reason that homosexual relationships are
only pleasure-seeking without possible procreation ignore the fact that a
homosexual couple can love each other just as a heterosexual couple can do so
and consider the procreation only from the biological point of view in neglect
of its theological significance ;
3)
the notion of « complementarity between the two sexes » implied in the idea
that a heterosexual couple united by God becomes « one flesh » is nothing but a
mythical prejudice ;
4) « the truth of one’s own sex
» brought into question by transgenderism is not the sex determined biologically,
but the sex really given by God, that is the ontological gender identity.
§
4.1. Homosexuality as we understand it now
The
word homosexuality is not belonging
to the Bible vocabulary nor to the theological terminology.
The
term homosexuality is anglicisation
of the German word Homosexualität which was first neologised
in the later half of the 19th century at the same time as and in opposition to
that of Heterosexualität.
It was took up by a German psychiatrist, Richard von Krafft-Ebing (1840-1902),
who made from psychopathologic and forensic points of view the first detailed and
systematic studies of the specific form of variations of psychosexual
behaviours he named homosexuality in
his famous work Psychopathia sexualis
the first edition of which was published in 1886.
In his book
he insisted already on decriminalisation of homosexual acts because he
considered that homosexuality is an innate condition for which homosexual
persons themselves cannot be responsible.
Most of the
developed countries decriminalised homosexual acts during the 1980s and 1990s,
while ca. seventy countries – most of them located in Asia and Africa – have still laws
criminalising homosexuality.
In the
field of psychiatry the category of homosexuality was depathologised in the 1970s
by reason that homosexuality per se
cannnot be regarded as one of mental disorders « causing regularly subjective
distress or associated with generalized impairment in social effectiveness of
functioning » (cf. DSM-III).
Thus decriminalised and depathologised the
homosexuality as we understand it now implies a relationship between persons of
the same sex attracted one to another (one-sidedly or mutually) affectionately and
erotically so that they may form a stable and faithful couple in favorable conditions
similar to those where a heterosexual couple can live a conjugal life.
§
4.2. Homosexuality and the Bible
§
4.2.1. Problems of sexual acts between men in the Old Testament
As far as we understand now under
the term homosexuality a relationship between persons of the same sex attracted one to another
affectionately and erotically so that they may form a stable and faithful
couple in favorable conditions similar to those where a heterosexual couple can
live a conjugal life, the sexual acts between men alluded to or mentioned as such
in some passages of the Old Testament cannot be regarded as homosexual acts.
Primo the so-called sin of
Sodom alluded to in Genesis 19,1-29 consists in fact in sexual violence done by
a heterosexual man against another man for purposes of domination, agression,
destruction, humiliation, etc. Such violent behaviours might bring about some
satisfaction of agressive or destructive impulses, but what matters is nothing like
affectionate sexual relationships between gay persons.
Secundo the interdiction formulated in Leviticus 18,22 and 20,13, read in the
context of law of holiness, concerns impulsive act of rape or adultery
committed by a heterosexual man against another man whom he takes as sexual
object in place of a woman because no woman is in his dispotion at the moment
of the act. In this case too, it has nothing to do with gay relationships as we
understand them now.
Tertio
et ultimo we find some mentions in Deuteronomy 23,18 or in 1
Kings 14,24 to sacred prostitutions in the cult of Baal as symbolic acts of
seeding the mother earth destined to assure fecundity, and it is suggested that
there are male sacred prostitutes as well as female ones. Such prostitutions
are of course interdicted in Israel because they imply worships of gods other
than the Lord. Anyway those who « lie with » male sacred prostitutes are
heterosexual men. Such sexual acts between men have also nothing to do with gay
relationships in our actual society.
Thus if we read those veterotestamentary passages in
question in their precise contexts we find there no interdiction nor no
condemnation of the sexual behaviour we call actually homosexuality.
§
4.2.2. Problems of sexual acts between same-sex persons in the New Testament
As to the passages of the Pauline Epistles also where
same-sex coitus is condemned, we must read them in their contexts.
First of all, what does saint Paul say in his Epistle to the Romans ?
Just after having formulated that ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως
ζήσεται [ who by faith is righteous shall live in eternal life ] (1,17), he
discusses in the following verses (1,18-32) the opposite cases, that is, those
who are unrighteous [ ἀδικία ] because of ungodliness [
ἀσέβεια ] and idolatry [ ἀλλάσσειν τὴν δόξαν τοῦ ἀφθάρτου θεοῦ ἐν ὁμοιώματι
εἰκόνος φθαρτοῦ ἀνθρώπου... ; σεβάζεσθαι καὶ λατρεύειν τῇ κτίσει παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα ].
Such people receive anger of God [ ὀργὴ θεοῦ ] who gives
them over in desires of their hearts [ ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις τῶν καρδιῶν αὐτῶν ] to filthy things [ ἀκαθαρσία ]
and to shameful passions [ πάθη ἀτιμίας ] so that they and their
women have sexual relationships with persons of the same sex.
Thus we see
that what saint Paul is condemning is same-sex relationships implying impulsive
sexual acts such as those interdicted in Leviticus 18,22 and 20,13. For the
words ἀδικία and ἀκαθαρσία are indicating transgression of the law of holiness.
And if they transgress the law of holiness,
it’s because they are idolators who don’t believe in God.
That is, if they believe in God, they
cannot be blamable for transgression of the Levitical laws even if they are gay,
exactly as Pope Francis said : « if a homosexual person is of good
will and is in search of God, I am no one to judge him ».
On the contrary, if someone who is
unrighteous because of idolatry has a heterosexual coitus as he or she is
driven by his or her sexual impulse, he or she is condemnable for adultery.
Other than in his Epistle to the Romans, it is said that saint Paul condemns gays in 1 Corinthians 6,9 and in 1
Timothy 1,10.
Certainly we find there the word homosexual in English translations. But in the original Greek text,
the word in question is not σοδομίτης nor παιδεραστής, but ἀρσενοκοίτης which
means literally « man who lies with a man », that is, one who is
concerned in the Levitic interdiction : « μετά ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην
γυναικείαν ».
Thus if we read the words of saint Paul in their
contexts, we find that his condemnations are destined to heterosexual men comitting
impulsive sexual acts with a man as ersatz woman. And saint Paul could have in
mind also cases of those who lie with male sacred prostitutes in paganistic
cults.
Anyway with the term ἀρσενοκοίτης saint Paul cannot have thought of gay people as they
are in our actual society.
So we can conclude that neither in the Old Testament
nor in the New Testament we find an interdiction or a condemnation concerning
homosexuality as we understand it actually.
Those who read in the Bible some negative thoughts
about homosexuality are only misinterpreting words of the Torah and of the
Apostle because of their discriminatory prejudices full of hate against LGBT
people.
§
4.3. Homosexual relationships believed to be mere pleasure-seeking without
possible procreation
Those who disapprove homosexuality by reason that same-sex
relationships are only pleasure-seeking with no possibility of procreation
ignore the fact that a homosexual couple can love each other just as a
heterosexual couple do so and consider also procreation only from biological
point of view.
In fact those
who believe that homosexual relationships are mere pleasure-seeking with no
possible procreation are inferring erroneously that homosexual relationships
are mere pleasure-seeking because
they have no possilibity of procreation.
Certainly a same-sex relationship cannot imply a
procreation in biological sense. But that doesn’t mean necessarily that it’s a
mere pleasure-seeking out of morality.
Indeed a homosexual couple can love each other just in
the manner of heterosexual love exhorted by Pope Francis in the nº 125 of Amoris Laetitia :
Furthermore marriage is a friendship which includes
notes proper to a passion, but it is a passion always directed to an ever more
stable and intense union. For « marriage is not instituted solely for the
procreation », but in order that mutual love « may be expressed in its
rectitude, progress and flower » (Gaudium et Spes, nº 50). This
particular friendship between a man and a woman acquires an all-encompassing character
only within the conjugal union. Precisely as all-encompassing, this union is
also exclusive, faithful and open to procreation. The couple shares everything
– even sexuality too – always in mutual respect. To express that situation the
Second Vatican Council said that « such a love, bringing together the human and
the divine, leads the partners to a free and mutual self-giving which is
manifested in feelings and gestures of tenderness and permeating their entire
life » (Gaudium
et Spes, n.49).
That is proved by a multitude of homosexual couples in
countries where same-sex marriage is already legalised.
As to the problem of procreation, we should ask to
ourselves what is procreation for us Catholics.
For us Catholics, procreation means not only
biological reproduction of human beings, but more essentially it consists in
engendering new generations of Catholics by transmitting our faith to children
who may be our own or adoptive or simply those children who happen to see and
hear us in a certain situation.
Thus if a same-sex couple adopts a child and brings
him or her up with love and faith so as to transmit to him or her God’s love, that
is also a procreation – a spiritual procreation if you like – which is no less
procreation than a procreation by a heterosexual couple.
In fact, in countries where child adoption by same-sex
couple is legalised, most of psychological or sociological studies have found no
significant difference in wellbeing between children of homosexual couples and
those of heterosexual couples : cf. for example, Parent-reported measures of child health and wellbeing in same-sex
parent families : a cross-sectional survey
§
4.4. The myth of complementarity between both sexes
The
Catholic Church believes heterosexual relationship should be privileged against
homosexual one because of complementarity between man and woman, as they say in
the nº 372 of the CCC :
Man and woman are
made « for each other » – not that God left them « half-made » and « incomplete
» : He created them for a communion of persons, in which each can be « helpmate
» to the other, for they are equal as persons and complementary as masculine and feminine. In marriage God unites
them in such a way that, by forming « one flesh », they can transmit human life
: « Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth ». By transmitting human life
to their descendants, man and woman as spouses and parents co-operate in a
unique way in the Creator’s work. (Underlined by the quoter.)
In
the nº 6 of his Letter to the bishops of
the Catholic Church on the pastoral care of homosexual persons dated the
1st October 1986, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith, present Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, explains the
significance of complementarity between
both sexes in this manner :
The theology of Creation
we find in Genesis provides us the fundamental point of view for understanding adequately
the problems posed by homosexuality. God, in his infinite wisdom and his
omnipotent love, calls into existence the whole reality as reflection of his
goodness. He creates human beings as man and woman in his own image and
likeness. Therefore human beings are creatures of God who are called to
reflect, in the complementarity of
the sexes, the inner unity of the
Creator. They accomplish this task in a special way when they cooperate with
Him in transmission of life by giving themselves to each other in marriage. (Underlined
by the quoter.)
Thus
they believe that if heterosexuality is privileged against homosexuality it is
because the complementarity of heterosexual couple forming « one flesh » is a
reflection and a representation of the essential Oneness of God as it is formulated
in Deuteronomy 6,4 : « Hear, O Israel ! The Lord our God is the Lord One ».
Now what is the complementarity between man and woman if we reconsider it in its essentiality ? Is it a matter of the anatomy and the physiology of genital organs ? That seems a rather rough basis for our « theology of Creation », and one that does not enable us to « under-stand adequately the problems posed » not only by homosexuality, but by sexuality as such.
Now what is the complementarity between man and woman if we reconsider it in its essentiality ? Is it a matter of the anatomy and the physiology of genital organs ? That seems a rather rough basis for our « theology of Creation », and one that does not enable us to « under-stand adequately the problems posed » not only by homosexuality, but by sexuality as such.
According
to Lacanian psychoanalysis the complementarity between the sexes is in fact
impossible, as Jacques Lacan has formulated it in a seemingly paradoxical
manner : « il n’y a pas de rapport sexuel » (there is no sexual relationship).
That is, genital jouissance (satisfaction
of sexual drive as such) which is naïvely supposed to be realizable in genital
maturity at the end of libidinal development is in fact impossible because all
we have in our sexual reality is nothing more than various forms of non-genital
libidinal fixation. A man has relationships only with objects on which libido
is fixed and which are essentially fetishes hindering any directly unifying
communion with the being of a woman. A woman either makes herself such a fetish
or, if she dare abolish herself as fetish, might fall into mystic ecstasy as
Saint Teresa of Avila did, but in such cases her partner is no longer a male
human being but God Himself. So sexual complementarity between the sexes is
nothing more than a myth however universal it may be.
Certainly
clinical work of psychoanalysis consists in dissolving non-genital libidinal
fixation, but at its end it doesn’t make possible the genital communion between
the sexes which is impossible in principle. What will be revealed at the end of
psychoanalytical experience is not a phallus as it was the case in ancient
mystery, but the very lack of phallus, that is, the hole of what Freud calls
castration, or, if we quote Heideggerian terminology, the cleared field of the
truth of Being [ die Lichtung der Wahrheit des Seyns ].
Therefore we cannot privilege
heterosexual relationship against homosexual one. The sexual complementarity is
impossible both in homosexual and in heterosexual relationships.
Rather
we would say that what could « reflect the inner unity of the Creator » is not
the genital complementarity between the sexes, but the unifying love, whether
heterosexual or homosexual, as it is explained in the nº 49 of Gaudium et spes :
When
two persons love each other sincerely, faithfully and passionately, « the Lord has
judged this love worthy to be healed, perfected and elevated with special gifts
of grace and charity. Such love, associating the human and the divine, leads
the spouses to a free and mutual gift of themselves... »
If
two persons, whether heterosexual or homosexual, love each other in such an
unifying love, then there is nothing that would hinder us from saying that their
love is the sign par excellence of the love of the Lord One.
§
4.5. The question of « the truth of one’s own sex » posed by transgenderism
It
is known that transgender people live their sexuality opposite to their anatomico-physiological
sex as soon as they begin to live in language, that is, as early as at the age
of one year or two.
For
example, a mother recalls her child with a male body and a female mind began to
prefer at the age of two years to play with dolls and to be dressed up as a
girl. Or a transgender man who is born female with male mind says in his
autobiography that before SRS he was living as if he had always been put in a full-body
costume of woman.
Let
us pose to ourselves a question : can transgenderism be reduced to a
dissociation between biological sex and psychological sex ? Can we think of the
problem of transgenderism adequately in terms of mind-body dualism ?
We
don’t think so because in such a perspective of mind-body dichotomy the so
called conversion therapies are proposed to “correct” erroneous cognition
transgender people have of their own sexuality so that their subjective feeling
may coincide with the physical « truth of their own sex ».
In order to overcome this inadequate understanding we formulate the essential problem posed by the fact of transgenderism in this manner : transgenderism consists in ontological dissociation of ontic sex and ontological sexuality, so that an ontically male person is ontologically feminine and/or that an ontically female person is ontologically masculine.
And we say that « the truth of one’s own sex » resides not in the ontic sex but in the ontological sexuality.
From such an ontological point of view we can find an equivalent dissociation concerning our being formulated by saint Paul in 1 Corinthians 15,42-44 :
In order to overcome this inadequate understanding we formulate the essential problem posed by the fact of transgenderism in this manner : transgenderism consists in ontological dissociation of ontic sex and ontological sexuality, so that an ontically male person is ontologically feminine and/or that an ontically female person is ontologically masculine.
And we say that « the truth of one’s own sex » resides not in the ontic sex but in the ontological sexuality.
From such an ontological point of view we can find an equivalent dissociation concerning our being formulated by saint Paul in 1 Corinthians 15,42-44 :
So also is the
resurrection of the dead : It is sown in corruption ; it is raised in
incorruption. It is sown in dishonor ; it is raised in glory. It is sown in
weakness ; it is raised in power. It is sown an animal body [ σῶμα ψυχικόν ] ; it is raised a spiritual body [ σῶμα πνευματικόν ]. There is an animal body [ σῶμα
ψυχικόν ],
and there is a spiritual body [ σῶμα πνευματικόν ].
Ontic
sex against ontological sexuality on the one hand, and σῶμα ψυχικόν against σῶμα
πνευματικόν on the other hand : those two distinctions present an illuminating
analogy. We say that « the truth of one’s own sex» is not on the side of ontic
sex and σῶμα ψυχικόν, but on the side of ontological sexuality and σῶμα
πνευματικόν, because the truth of God’s creation resides on the latter side.
Sex
reassignment surgery is not then an artificial procedure blasphemously damaging
one’s god-given body, but rather it respects the truth of the divine creation
because it modifies ontic σῶμα ψυχικόν only to make it consistent with
ontological σῶμα πνευματικόν.
Anyway
SRS must be admitted as far as it can serve for salvation of transgender people
who could commit auto-mutilation or even suicide because of the intolerable
dysphoria they suffer from their very early childhood.
As
Pope Francis said it on homosexual people, we could say : if someone is
transgender and is searching for the Lord and has good will, then who are we to
blame him or her for appropriate SRS or endocrinological treatments ?
Finally
I’d like to answer briefly to the question : what determines the ontological
sexuality, i.e. the truth of one’s own sex ? A phallus – provided not ontically
but ontologically.
To
discuss adequately the problem we must firstly distinguish according to
Heideggerian topology ontic locus and ontological locality [ die Ortschaft der
Wahrheit des Seyns ]. The latter is ex-sistent [ ek-sistent ] to the former.
This distinction is what Heidegger calls ontological difference [ die
ontologische Differenz ].
In
this topological perspective, if you ask whether God exists or not, you are in
an ontological confusion. God cannot be situated in the ontic locus. The place
of God is the ontological locality. But that doesn’t mean that God ex-sists as
Name-of-the-Father in the ontological locality. The true Name-of-the-Father is the
impossible Name of the Lord. The so-called Tetragrammaton is only a seeming of
His true Name which is not only impossible to pronounce but also impossible to
write as such. It doesn’t stop not being written. Not to stop not being written
: that is Lacanian definition of « impossible ». So God as pure Spirit without
difference of the sexes as it is said in the CCC (nº 370), or, we would say,
God as pure Being (Seyn in
Heidegger’s terminology or manque-à-être,
lack-of-being, in Lacan’s terminology) is the vacant ontological locality itself
which is ex-sistent to the ontic locus where Seiendes (things which are there) exsists.
Then
we can define ontological sexuality in following terms : If in the ontological
locality of pure Being of a human being a phallus ex-sists, this human being is
ontologically masculine. On the contrary, if in the locality of pure Being no
phallus ex-sists, this human being is ontologically feminine.
Lacan
says a bit more on this subject, but I suppose that’ll be too much here.
§ 5. Conclusion
The
foundation of the Catholic Church is God’s love that excludes nobody but
includes everybody.
On
that standpoint of the all-inclusive love of God we have developed in the
present paper some critical arguments against traditional prejudices of the
Catholic Church on sexual minority.
We
render thanks to God who has the mercy of having sent us a pastor like Pope
Francis who has abandoned traditional condemnations in order to welcome LGBT
people into the Church in a more inclusive and more benevolent manner. May he
be praised as the one who opened first the doors of the Church widely and
generously to the excluded minority to invite them to the feast of the Lord.
And
we pray God that the Church may bless without reservation same-sex marriage and
all the medical treatments necessary for transgender people.
in Tokyo, the 28th August 2016
