7

Is it a sin against charity to confirm a transsexual lifestyle by using pronouns (such as she to address a transwoman) that the church says is an offense against the Natural Law?

  • I doubt the Church has pronounced on this subject and as such this question is probably opinion based by any theological definition. – Ken Graham Oct 11 '19 at 3:59
  • 5
    @ken I'm not sure why you think that might make it off topic. If the Church doesn't say something specifically, don't you just make the argument from first principles? Plus there is this document to go off – Peter Turner Oct 11 '19 at 4:04
  • I'm having trouble seeing this as not a duplicate of the other question. I think Geremia made some good distinctions in the comments on that other question, but I don't see why a single good answer can't handle both questions. Not sure if I should vote as duplicate ... – 3961 Oct 15 '19 at 0:32
  • 1
    @fred I just made two questions because I figured he was wanting to bite on one or the other. This question is a bit more interesting to me. Especially "in light of recent events". – Peter Turner Oct 15 '19 at 0:37
  • 1
    A link to "the other question" might be useful. However (to the close voters), any question starting "According to the Catholic Church..." can always be definitively answered by Church documents or first principles. This question is; it's not a matter of opinion at all. And I might attempt to do that, but a Sunday is not a good day. – Andrew Leach Oct 27 '19 at 10:28
6

There are a number of points to address in this question.

  1. Transsexualism
  2. Confirming someone in sin
  3. Sins against charity

There are lots of things in this answer which many people will find objectionable or hurtful or blind or disaffirming, but the question asks for the Catholic point of view.

I’m also aware that there are always difficult cases, and this answer may well engender other questions, “But what about...?” Such questions are better asked separately, as the question asked here is succinct in itself.

And, this answer deliberately avoids answering “How can I avoid the occasion of sin?” because that’s pastoral advice.


  1. Transsexualism

    The word transsexual doesn’t appear in the Catechism as that’s not recent enough. However, it does appear in two Vatican documents and has been noted as ethically unacceptable to anthropology.

    The Holy Father, in his homily during the Inaugural Mass in St Peter’s Basilica, pointed out, with a very incisive expression, how the First World “is exporting its spiritual toxic waste” to Africa and other developing areas. One of these poisons is the so-called “gender theory”, which, heavily disguised, is starting to infiltrate associations, governments and even some ecclesial environments in the African continent, judging from what the Pontifical Council for the Family tells us.

    The agents of various international institutions and organizations start from real problems, which must be dutifully resolved, such as the injustice and violence suffered by women, infant mortality, malnutrition and famine, problems related to housing and work. They propose solutions based on the values of equality, health and liberty: sacrosanct concepts, but rendered ambiguous by the new anthropological meanings that are given to them. For example, equality of people no longer just means equal dignity and access to fundamental human rights; but also the irrelevance of the natural differences between men and women, the uniformity of all individuals, as though they were sexually undifferentiated, and therefore the equality of all sexual orientations and behavior: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transsexual, polymorphous. Each individual has the right to freely practice (and change, should they wish) their choices in line with their drives, desires and preferences.

    This ideology is spread by reproductive health centers, local educational meetings and international TV programs broadcast via satellite. Collaboration of African governments and local groups, including ecclesial groups, is sought, and these groups usually don’t realize the ethically unacceptable anthropological implications of this.

    Cardinal Antonelli, then President of the Pontifical Council for the Family, 2009

    Transsexualism is a choice — even if it’s a choice which one is felt to be forced to make. It is a choice driven by preference, or desire, or a perceived need (“drive”) to reject God’s ordered creation and substitute a man-made one. The substituted creation doesn’t even need to have been surgically created: it is sufficient to say “I am not a man; I am a woman.” Cardinal Antonelli warned ten years ago that society would validate this man-made creation and even mandate its recognition — for example by forcing women to allow transwomen to compete in women’s sport, or compelling speech in the form of pronouns and the like.

    As the question here indicates, such a man-made creation is contrary to the natural order as created by God, to Natural Law. The desire for it is called “disordered” for that reason. That’s not a polemical or pejorative word; it’s purely objective, meaning “outside the natural order”.

    A disorder is not sinful. Although the Catechism pre-dates gender theory and transsexualism, it talks explicitly of same-sex attraction, and the principles can be applied to all sorts of disorders.

    2358 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. 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.

    What is sinful is giving in to the disorder and going against God’s will for his creation. Again, in terms of homosexuality:

    2357 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,¹⁴⁰ tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”¹⁴¹ 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.

    2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

    Even though those paragraphs can be applied to any disorder, transsexualism applies another layer. By saying “I am not a man; I am a woman,” or even “I am neither male nor female,” the person is saying “God got it wrong, and I’m putting it right.” Not only is that pride, but it is supplanting God.

    Thus becoming a transsexual, acting on the desire or drive, is a mortal sin:

    1874 To choose deliberately — that is, both knowing it and willing it — something gravely contrary to the divine law and to the ultimate end of man is to commit a mortal sin. This destroys in us the charity without which eternal beatitude is impossible. Unrepented, it brings eternal death.

  2. Confirming someone in sin

    On this point, the Catechism is clear:

    1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

    • by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
    • by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
    • by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
    • by protecting evil-doers.

  3. By confirming someone in their sin — by using a disordered pronoun in the question’s example — we approve it. That act is sinful in itself, and again may even be a mortal sin because we deliberately choose something which is contrary to divine law.

  4. Sins against charity

    Any sin is a sin against God. A sin against charity is a sin against divine charity.

    2093 ...The first commandment enjoins us to love God above everything and all creatures for him and because of him.

    2094 One can sin against God’s love in various ways:

    • indifference neglects or refuses to reflect on divine charity; it fails to consider its prevenient goodness and denies its power.
    • ingratitude fails or refuses to acknowledge divine charity and to return him love for love.
    • lukewarmness is hesitation or negligence in responding to divine love; it can imply refusal to give oneself over to the prompting of charity.
    • acedia or spiritual sloth goes so far as to refuse the joy that comes from God and to be repelled by divine goodness.
    • hatred of God comes from pride. It is contrary to love of God, whose goodness it denies, and whom it presumes to curse as the one who forbids sins and inflicts punishments.

  5. The question does not ask “It is uncharitable to confirm a transsexual lifestyle?” but “Is it a sin against charity to confirm it?”

    Confirming the sinful lifestyle could certainly be said to confirm the hatred of God, hatred which comes from the pride of the one who has rejected him. God loves everyone just as they are, and to accede in the rejection of that love when someone seeks to “improve” upon creation is to accede in the rejection of God.

    In that regard, yes: it is a sin against charity.

    It is also uncharitable. The Spiritual Works of Mercy include

    • counselling the doubtful
    • instructing the ignorant
    • admonishing the sinner
    • comforting the sorrowful


    ...all of which may be relevant where someone is wrestling with how they deal with being the creation of God that they are.


¹⁴⁰ Cf. Gen 19:1–29; Rom 1:24–27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10
¹⁴¹ CDF, Persona humana 8

| improve this answer | |
-3

In short:

It is prideful to not use a transgendered persons preferred pronouns. Therefore it is a sin, against charity, to deliberately mis-gender someone.

Circa 2016 Pope Francis indicated, that although the Catholic Church does not recognize gender-fluidity, that pastoral care should be extended to those who consider themselves transgender. Deliberately mis-gendering someone is not good pastoral care!

Furthermore: 'Do not judge lest you be judged' To judge that a Trans person is living a life of sin and so decide to not use their preferred pronouns, is well prideful and 'judgy'.

So specifically to act in a prideful way, not using a trans persons preferred pronouns, "It is contrary to love of God, whose goodness it denies, and whom it presumes to curse as the one who forbids sins and inflicts punishments [ref]" Therefore it is a (Prideful) "Sin(s) against Charity" to one self to act in such a way; to someone who is transgender.

As further evidence this would be the case:

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you*"

Would you like to be deliberately called the wrong name or have the wrong honorifics (Mr/Ms) used when someone is referring to you? Chances are no.

Therefore (show the fruit of the spirit, and) show kind(ness), by referring to people (trans or not) with their preferred pronouns and honorifics.

So from current pastoral view, being prideful canon, and from a 'do on to others commandment' point of view we should not be mis-gendering people.


Personal take:

*'Doing on to others' is the 2nd highest commandment (After, 'Love the Lord with your whole self). "All other commandments fall under these". Jesus took a very dim view of the Pharisees who followed the law precisely ('tithed down to a tenth of a mint leaf'), but still lacked compassion.

If you are justifying being a 'd*ck' by using scripture, well that is not very Christ like, or very: 'they will know you are my disciples by your fruit and by your love for one another' And I posit, that one's salvation is in jeopardy.

| improve this answer | |
  • Please forgive my paraphrased verses. I'm on my phone between meetings, and don't have time to look up the exact chapter and verse. – DarcyThomas Feb 25 at 6:30
  • 3
    These look like your own interpretations of these verses. Can you present any quotes or references to Catholic sources showing that this is how the Catholic Church interprets those verses? – curiousdannii Feb 25 at 6:45
  • When down voting please remember to add a comment so the answer (or question) can be improved. – DarcyThomas Feb 25 at 6:48
  • 3
    Unlike the existing answer the relationship between the sources provided and the conclusion that is drawn from them is remote and subject to personal interpretation. The issue is more complex than whether we like to be addressed by our correct name and preferred honorifics, and those complexities are not addressed. It remains in question what the Catholic Church considers to be the correct honorifics in the first place. There is no evidence that the Church establishes the same relationship between the provided broad, generally accepted moral principles of charity, and the original question. – ig-dev Feb 25 at 7:32
  • 1
    I think that you are on to some solid points backed by scripture and the core principle of Christian charity as described by the Catholic Church, but there's a lot of Darcy opinion in this also. I can recommend that you drop in the definition of Charity that is laid out in the Catechism as a way to support this being consistent with Catholic teaching. (the catechism is available on line at vatican.va) – KorvinStarmast Feb 25 at 17:37

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.