Rather, mutilation is not an unforgivable sin.

This is yet another straw man argument.

NOBODY has claimed that the mutilation is "unforgivable."

Evidently you have no argument countering our objections, hence you (pluiral) avoid addressing our actual criticism:
(1) public versus private Baptism and (2) the manifest appearance of opposing Catholic morals and dogma.

Still playing stupid and avoiding the stated criticisms.


Are you too stupid to identify what sex these persons intend to manifest?

Would you also say they would also be prevented from publicly receiving confession, or communion?

Do not pretend that I claim jurisdiction. I am simply consistent with 2,000 years of Catholic praxis.

Last time I went to confession, it was PRIVATE.

As for Holy Communion, it follows BAPTISM… so… address the stated criticisms and stop playing games.

Is gynecomastia in men, or hirsutism in women impediments to public reception of the sacraments?

Are you too stupid to do pattern recognition?

Gynecomastia does not reach 38DD proportions. Gynecomastia is not accompanied by regression to a female larynx (no "Adam's apple"). Gynecomastia does not typically manifest with wearing feminine hairdos, clothing, feigned high voice, and body language mimicry

If natural deformities are not impediments, then neither would artificial ones be.

Who says? Cite Magisterial authority for your latest bullshit claim.

I already quoted Deuteronomy 22:5, thus former transsɛҳuąƖs would need to dress the sex that God assigned to them, and ultimately do the best they can in presenting themselves as God intended. 

Yes, true repentance demands "doing the best they can in presenting themselves as God intended." 

Precisely the point of our criticism. 

They would need to cease dressing in such a manner, I've already quoted Deuteronomy 22:5

If you really do agree, why did you camouflage your agreement with a bunch of straw man garbage and try to conflate natural medical problems with intentional sɛҳuąƖ mutilation???!!!

https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/vatican-transɛҳuąƖs-can-be-baptized/msg911676/#msg911676

BAPTISM OF A PERSON LIVING IN SIN.

[ . . . ]

Her reception of baptism, however, would be unworthy. Worthy reception of baptism by an adult requires that he have at least attrition for his personal sins. Now Mrs. B.’s attrition is insufficient and insincere, since it lacks a necessary complement, namely, a firm purpose of amendment, for she is determined to persevere in her adulterous union. Hence her reception of baptism, while valid, would be unworthy. Far from producing the new man in Christ in her, it would burden her soul with the added guilt of sacrilege.

[ . . . ]

It is the second priest’s solution that is correct. The baptism of Mrs. B., as far as the requirements on her part are concerned, would be valid but unlawful. Pastoral prudence, however, will bid the pastor not to be brusque in rejecting her requests, but to be forbearing in order to preserve the spark of faith so that, if a change of conditions permits it, he can baptize and receive her into the Church with good conscience. Moreover, if the circuмstances are favorable, he may be able to persuade this woman and the man with whom she is living to separate, or, if there is no danger of continued sin and of scandal, to live as brother and sister. Then he could lawfully admit her to baptism at once.

In the above example, three things are needed before this woman can approach baptism:

1) attrition for personal sins
2) firm purpose of amendment
3) no danger of continued sin and of scandal

Gynecomastia does not reach 38DD proportions. Gynecomastia is not accompanied by regression to a female larynx (no "Adam's apple"). Gynecomastia does not typically manifest with wearing feminine hairdos, clothing, feigned high voice, and body language mimicry

I brought that up in so far as it relates to possibly causing scandal, because I think that is what you are arguing about.


A former transsɛҳuąƖ can have:

1) attrition for their sins
2) firm purpose of amendment (no dressing up in clothes of the opposite sex, for example)


What is under dispute is the possibility of scandal, is it not?

Scandal is part of the concern.  As was stated early in this thread, liceity of such Baptism and the eternal fate of the allegedly repentant trannie(s) are other concerns.

OK, I think I understand a bit more. This ties into what TKGS had brought up:


https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/vatican-transɛҳuąƖs-can-be-baptized/msg911867/#msg911867


In other words, how can the priest ascertain that the former transsɛҳuąƖ has true attrition, and true firm purpose of amendment, lest the soul suffer even greater damnation, while also ascertaining the aforementioned in order to avoid sacrilege.

Really?  You postulate moral equivalence between congenital anomalies and self-mutilation???  Go figure.

Demonstrate that equivalence in Magisterium.

I meant equivalent in so far as it would cause scandal, not that mortal sin isn't imputed to those who sought out such surgery to mutilate themselves.





The American Ecclesiastical Review 1957-12: Vol 137 Iss 6

Catholics in Invalid Marriages

Page 385:


https://archive.org/details/sim_american-ecclesiastical-review_1957-12_137_6/page/385/mode/1up

[ . . . ]


Applying these distinctions to an invalid marriage, the case is formally public if both the fact of the invalidity of the marriage is known or likely to be known, and it is also known that the marriage cannot be repaired.

[ . . .]


Since, in a formally public case, there is already the scandal of cohabitation in an invalid marriage, and there would be the still greater scandal of the apparent approval of the Church if such persons were known to receive the sacraments, permission to live as brother and sister will rarely be given. Such parties must separate if it is at all possible. If separation is impossible because of very grave reasons, they must make every effort to move to a place where the invalidity of their marriage is not known. The case would then become occult. In a case where it is both impossible for the parties to separate because of very grave reasons, and it is also impossible for them to move to a new locality, the public reception of the sacraments can never be permitted. However, at times the private or secret reception of the sacraments may be permitted to such people, provided the other requirements of the brother and sister arrangement are met, and the parties promise to remove the scandal as soon as it is morally possible.

Taking the above principles and applying them to the public reception of the sacraments of a former transsɛҳuąƖ:


Public reception of the sacraments can never be permitted, if


1) known public scandal from the circuмstance per se, which cannot be remedied
2) greater scandal from the apparent approval of the Church



Private or secret reception of the sacraments might be permitted, if


3) no danger of continued sin
4) promise to remove the scandal as soon as it is morally possible


Regardless, attrition for personal sins, and firm purpose of amendment will always be required


From what follows in the regard to # 4, there might be an obligation to go under the knife a second time to remove any implants, as soon as the man can afford to do so if such mutilations cannot be hidden by clothing.

Gynecomastia does not reach 38DD proportions.

If the mutilation can't be hidden under male clothing, and thus could cause scandal, I could see the priest only administer the sacraments to this man by appointment only, in private.

If the man went under the knife a second time in order to remove any breast implants, and then was able to hide the mutilation underneath clothing, thereby avoiding scandal, then there would not be any impediment to publicly administer the sacraments to such a man.






Canons on administering the sacraments, 1917 code of cannon law:

Canon 752

§ 1. An adult should not be baptized unless he knowingly and with desire has been rightly instructed; moreover, he should be admonished to be sorry for sins.

Canon 855

§ 1. All those publicly unworthy are to be barred from the Eucharist, such as excommunicates, those interdicted, and those manifestly infamous, unless their penitence and emendation are shown and they have satisfied beforehand the public scandal [they caused].

Canon 942

[On the subject of extreme unction]

This sacrament is not to be conferred on those who are impenitent, persevering contumaciously in manifest mortal sin; if there is doubt about this, it should be conferred under condition.