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)
https://www.facebook.com/ogasawara.s
http://lacantokyo.org
http://lgbtcj.org
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
I. Introduction
II. Traditional attitudes of the Catholic Church towards LGBT people
II-1. Traditional attitudes of the Catholic Church towards homosexuality
II-2. Opinions of the Catholic Church about transgenderism
III. The new pastoral orientation of Pope Francis for homosexual people
IV. Prejudices of the Catholic Church about LGBT problems
IV-1. Homosexuality as we understand it now
IV-2. Homosexuality and the Bible
IV-2-1. Problems of sexual acts between men in the Old Testament
IV-2-2. Problems of sexual acts between same-sex persons in the New Testament
IV-3. Homosexual relationships believed to be mere pleasure-seeking without
possible procreation
IV-4. The myth of complementarity between both sexes
IV-5. The question of « the truth of one’s own sex » posed by the transgenderism
V. Conclusion
I. 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 transgendercan 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.
II. Traditional attitudes of the Catholic Church towards LGBT people
II-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.
II-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.
III. 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.
IV. 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.
IV-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.
IV-2. Homosexuality and the Bible
IV-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.
IV-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 « 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 because of ungodliness
and idolatry.
Such people receive anger of God who gives them over in desires of their
hearts to filthy things and to shameful passions 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 unrighteous and filthy 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 homosexualin English translations. But in the original Greek text, the word in question
is not sodomites nor paiderastes, but arsenokoietes which means literally « man who lies with a man », that is, one who is
concerned in the Levitic interdiction.
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 arsenokoietes 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.
IV-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
IV-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
personsdated 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 complementarityof 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 « understand 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.
IV-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 St Paul in 1 Corinthians 15,42-4 :
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
(soma psychikon) ; it is raised a spiritual body (soma pneumatikon). There
is an animal body, and there is a spiritual body.
Ontic sex against ontological sexuality on the one hand, and soma psychikon against soma pneumatikon 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 soma psychikon, but on the side of ontological sexuality and soma pneumatikon, 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 soma psychikon only to make it consistent with ontological soma pneumatikon.
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.
V. 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
