Posted on 04/08/2024 1:22:31 PM PDT by Cronos
The Vatican on Monday issued a new document approved by Pope Francis stating that the church believes that gender fluidity and transition surgery, as well as surrogacy, amount to affronts to human dignity.
The sex a person is assigned at birth, the document argued, was an “irrevocable gift” from God and “any sex-change intervention, as a rule, risks threatening the unique dignity the person has received from the moment of conception.” People who desire “a personal self-determination, as gender theory prescribes,” risk succumbing “to the age-old temptation to make oneself God.”
....Cardinal Fernández made clear, drawing a distinction between the document, which he said was of high doctrinal importance, as opposed to the recent statement allowing blessings for same-sex Catholics. The church teaches that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
And in a few days this idiot will issue a new statement supporting trannies. Who gives a crap what these vatican faggots say anymore? The Church needs an inquisition.
Threat to human dignity - like fagottry
Absolutely right. Sex is not assigned at birth by the delivery team; they merely record how you were born.
This is cover for whatever heresy they’re getting ready to push. At least, that seems to have been the pattern re vatican press releases of late. Besides, if the NYT picks it up, you know it has to be bait.
It’s a SIN AGAINST GOD!!
Notice that the phrase sex assigned at birth is *not* included in the quote:
The sex a person is assigned at birth, the document argued, was an “irrevocable gift” from God
And is this not necessarily what the document says. And so we look at what the document does say (below) and see it uses the phrase “from the moment of conception.
People undermine not only themselves but others who hold similar ideas by criticizing what was not done. That is the level I expect fron those one the other side, let’s try to be better than they, shall we?
From the document:
Sex Change
60. The dignity of the body cannot be considered inferior to that of the person as such. The Catechism of the Catholic Church expressly invites us to recognize that “the human body shares in the dignity of ‘the image of God.’”[106] Such a truth deserves to be remembered, especially when it comes to sex change, for humans are inseparably composed of both body and soul. In this, the body serves as the living context in which the interiority of the soul unfolds and manifests itself, as it does also through the network of human relationships. Constituting the person’s being, the soul and the body both participate in the dignity that characterizes every human.[107] Moreover, the body participates in that dignity as it is endowed with personal meanings, particularly in its sexed condition.[108] It is in the body that each person recognizes himself or herself as generated by others, and it is through their bodies that men and women can establish a loving relationship capable of generating other persons. Teaching about the need to respect the natural order of the human person, Pope Francis affirmed that “creation is prior to us and must be received as a gift. At the same time, we are called to protect our humanity, and this means, in the first place, accepting it and respecting it as it was created.”[109] It follows that any sex-change intervention, as a rule, risks threatening the unique dignity the person has received from the moment of conception. This is not to exclude the possibility that a person with genital abnormalities that are already evident at birth or that develop later may choose to receive the assistance of healthcare professionals to resolve these abnormalities. However, in this case, such a medical procedure would not constitute a sex change in the sense intended here
God knew each of us before we were even knit in our mother’s wombs. Male and female, He made us, the sex we are—Even before we were born. The DIE language in this Vatican document stinks.
I was commenting on what I believed to be a quote from the left-wing NYT reporter/commentator, though they won’t let me read the article without paying money. I was taking the word from a previous reply that it was an accurate quote - which does fit the usual NYT perverted position.
I was not referring to the document itself.
Oh, sorry, I misunderstood!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.