Wednesday, September 2, 2015


There is a definitive ruling from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith concerning a brouhaha over this question in Spain. This is what Rorate Caeli is reporting:

Important - Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith responds: Transsexual cannot be Godparent

The Bishop of Cádiz and Ceuta, Spain, Bp. Rafael Zornoza, was the object of intense media persecution in his country after he refused the request of a lady (now claiming to be a "man") from being the "godfather". In early August, it seemed that he had caved in. As Breitbart reported on August 8, "A Spanish bishop has caved in to pressure and allowed a transsexual man to become a godfather. The Bishop of Cádiz and Ceuta will now allow Alex Salinas, who was born a woman, to become godfather to his nephew, his local parish priest has said."
Alas, thankfully, that was not exactly the case. Today, the Bishop of Cádiz and Ceuta published a long communiqué, which includes this central excerpt (first translation in English of the relevant CDF response):
[Bishop:]... Considering the disorientation caused among some of the faithful by some words having been attributed to me that I had not pronounced, and due to the complexity and media relevance of this subject, taking into consideration the possible pastoral consequences of any decision regarding it, I raised up a formal consultation before the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, whose response was:
[CDF:]"Regarding this particular [issue], I inform you of the impossibility that it be admitted. The transsexual behavior itself reveals, in a public manner, an attitude that is opposed to the moral demand of resolving one's own problem of sexual identity according to the truth of one's own sex. Therefore, it is evident that this person does not possess the requisite of leading a life according to the faith and to the position of godfather (CIC [Code of Canon Law] Can 874 §3), not being able, therefore, of being admitted to the position either of godmother or of godfather. Discrimination is not to be seen in this, but only a recognition of an objective lack of the requisites that by their own nature are necessary to take over the ecclesial responsibility of being a godparent."
[Bishop:] For these reasons, it has been made known to the interested parties that their request cannot be accepted.
The Church welcomes all persons charitably, wanting to help each one in his position with sentiments of mercy, but without denying the truth that she preaches, that she proposes to all as a path a faith to be freely embraced.
[Source: Diócesis de Cádiz y Ceuta, in Spanish]
My Comment: Certainly as controversial as this decision would be today (and that itself tells you how our world and Church are devolving) one can deduce that Pope Francis was consulted, especially as we enter the year of mercy where the pope is making very clear what sin is and isn't and striving mightily to revive the practice of Confession. To do so, His Holiness must make clear what it is that a penitent must bring to confession--his mortal sins, all of them, and his venial sins if he so chooses.  The pope cannot revive the practice of Confession without reviving the awareness of what sin is and our culpably. 

The Church welcomes all persons, sinners and saint, although most of us are in the category of the former. How can we experience conversion and a change of direction when mortal sin has entered our lives if we call sin good, which in a sense is the mortal sin and unforgivable sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Perhaps the unforgivable sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit is calling something that is evil, disordered and sinful, good. If one believes it is good and attributes it to God there is no repentance and no asking for forgiveness and thus no mercy or forgiveness--it is unforgivable under this circumstance!


Jusadbellum said...

The secular world has no problem judging others as "haters" (i.e. sinful) when people run afoul of their moral dogma (called "political correctness). They have zero compunction for discriminating against people they deem socially 'backward" (i.e. rednecks, hillbillies, white Christian conservative men).

So their complaints that the Church is "insensitive" to their feelings is a lot of hypocrisy and hogwash. They don't give a tinker's damn about OUR FEELINGS do they? No. Not a bit. They don't give a damn about OUR SENSIBILITIES or our beliefs or our culture or our opinions.

This hypocrisy plus their declaration that there is no objective moral norms or no objective human nature but that all is fluid also points to their tactical relativism and means in practice that they've no ground to stand on to feel as though the Church's position is offensive.

After all....IF (as they claim to believe) there is no objective moral norm, no unchanging human nature, and that all is in flux, it follows that there can be no sin and no 'objective' harm from anyone and for anyone. They've no grounds to claim rights and no grounds to claim hurt.

Rights and hurt talk only 'work' if you are coming from a perspective of inalienable and unchangeable human nature, of objective moral norms valid for all people, across all cultures, and despite any subjective states of mind.

But they declare there is no objective moral norm and no unchanging human nature!

Well, then, their feelings are of no consequence as indeed neither are OUR feelings. We owe them nothing.

Ah....but these fellows do very much secretly presume that their side is eternally right and eternally correct and eternally healthy and good and sane.... and that protests notwithstanding, there is objective moral norms. They just figure out how to ground it in anything other than special pleading terms. It's tactical relativism to disarm people until such time as they've seized the means of communication and the means of production at which time, like the Marxists of yore, they'll declare total victory and demand fealty to the new religious dogma and new idol who must be worshipped on pain of death.

Transvestites and transsexuals are at best mentally ill people needing therapy and care. They're not sane and healthy individuals whose ideations are objective and mandatory for the world to change so as to vindicate itself as 'just'.

Tin Foil Zucchetto said...

Do priests normally investigate the moral life of prospective godparents and determine whether they're mentally ill?

Jusadbellum said...

When drama queens publicly declare their illness is healthy and demand rights that are actually privileges, then yes, pastors have no choice but to investigate the lifestyle of would-be godparents or other sponsors.