Another look at Ecclesial Vocations and the Refusal of the Church to profess Transgendered Persons

[[Sister Laurel, have you read the following quote? "Matson told OSV News, “We (Bishop Stowe and Matson) both think that it is a matter of justice that LGBT people be considered based on their character and on their actual gifts and their actual love of God and (being) desirous of the church, as opposed to saying (that) this state of being, whether it’s your sexual orientation or gender identity, in itself makes you unfit and uncallable by God.” How would you respond to this idea that a state of being makes one unfit and uncallable? It doesn't sound just to me. How can God be constrained by conclusions drawn by the Church, especially when they rule out a whole class or group of people?]]

Thanks for your questions. Yes, I am familiar with the quotation you cited. I think it is critical to remember that a transgendered state is not a natural state into which one is born. Instead, it is a created state a gender dysphoric person achieves with a variety of decisions and forms of medical intervention in order to minimize one's gender dysphoria or gender discordance. While some moral theologians argue that the pain of the dysphoria may be so agonizing that certain medical interventions would be a moral choice, this conclusion, when applicable in a given case, would still not make the adoption of public vows by the afflicted person possible. You see, dysphoria itself does not make the person incapable of also making public profession or being consecrated. It is acting in particular ways on that dysphoria in an attempt to harmonize one's sex with one's conflicting sense of gender and minimize the dysphoria that makes the person incapable of also making public vows or being consecrated; it seems to me (and I am still thinking about this) that this is true even when the choice for limited gender affirmative intervention is a moral one.

The act of trying to shift one's sex to align with one's experienced gender to the point of undergoing surgical interventions and medical treatments that "mutilate one's body" is part of what the Church generally objects to. The related point the Church makes is that the surgeries and other medical interventions, no matter what else they do to ease the patient's dysphoria, do not change the person's sex --- though they do obscure it, and sometimes make detransitioning impossible. In every case, public vows/professions require the person to affirm their own original sexed condition, to recognize that this is very good and desired by God. Even in the presence of gender dysphoria the person is called to affirm his/her original sexed condition, and then too, to suffer the dysphoria as well as s/he can as part of coming to fullness of existence in one's foundational manliness or womanliness. 

Since medicine cannot change a person's sex but can only approximate such a change, and since the Church holds it is part of any authentic ecclesial vocation to affirm and mature in our original sexed condition, one who acts contrary to these positions to become "transgendered" makes a series of decisions and takes actions that make that person unsuited for public vows. This does not make the person uncallable, but it does limit the ways in which God can call them to public ecclesial vocations. While it may sound outrageous to think that God can be limited (or, more accurately, limits Godself) in this way, it is not. God entrusts certain vocations to the Church herself. Religious life, priesthood, consecrated virginity, consecrated eremitical life, and others yet to be established under c 605 (consecrated widowhood, for instance) are ecclesial vocations, and therefore it is up to the Church to whom they belong as a gift of God to determine how it is a person enters these.

Yes, God calls persons to these vocations, but God does so through the mediation of the Church, not otherwise. This ecclesial character is one of the most significant aspects of these vocations, and one of the most difficult to get candidates to appreciate. It is the aspect that makes it so difficult for individuals to accept when the Church says, "we appreciate you feel called to this vocation, but the Church (religious congregation, bishop, etc) does not agree". If one wants to embrace an ecclesial vocation, then one must accept it is truly ecclesial through and through; this means one must meet the qualifications the Church determines are a necessary dimension of the calling that is the gift she protects and governs. If one cannot or will not meet these conditions, then one cannot presume such a calling. In the case of transgendered persons, if they cannot or will not affirm their original sexed condition as an essential part of responding to such a call, they have acted in ways that make them unsuited and uncallable because some choices are mutually exclusive. Again, this transgendered state is not their original state of being; it is chosen to deal with gender dysphoria.

I don't think any of this suggests the Church does not regard a transgendered person's character, gifts, love of God, and so forth, in discerning one's call to consecrated life. However, yes, it does prioritize everything one brings to the Church in seeking admission to profession and consecration. What it recognizes is that one's sexed condition is the most foundational dimension of one's selfhood, the selfhood one brings in response to such a call. The vows are our threefold commitment to allow God to bring every part of our lives to fulfillment in Him. What the church recognizes is that it is impossible to bring our whole selves to profession and consecration if we have denied (or are still denying) the most foundational dimension of ourselves.

Neither does the Church's refusal to admit one to profession and consecration because one is transgendered equate to a disparagement of (or refusal to honor) one's character, love of God, love of one's neighbors, giftedness, etc. This is simply not the case. More fundamentally, however, it seems to me that the church does indeed ask one if s/he will live one's foundational manliness or womanliness despite the degree of repentance and correlative suffering that will necessarily entail. (I am thinking here of the story of the pearl of great price.) There is no doubt this asks a lot of a transgendered person who wishes to live religious life, but I can't see where it is unjust in the way either Cole Matson or (reportedly) Bishop Stowe think is the case.