Thread by @DawnofMercy

As a theologian (STD), I read @SFDiocese Bishop DeGrood’s pastoral letter on transgender ideology (s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2213…) with approval. But as a @CUACanonLaw student (finishing my thesis), I read some of its accompanying policies (s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2213…) with alarm.
🧵
1/x

Certainly, per canon law, Bishop DeGrood has a responsibility to teach the Catholic faith, & as a shepherd he has the right to make particular law for his diocese. And most of his new policies are in line with accepted canonical practice. But a few are dangerously ambiguous. 2/x

By "dangerously ambiguous," I mean that a few of the new policies require clarification--otherwise they harm the faithful's rights & won't withstand an appeal to the Holy See.
The ambiguity is present in the policies on reception of adult Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist. 3/x

Before I discuss the specifics of the problematic policies, some general observations are in order:

First, it should be noted that canon law is quite protective of the faithful's right to receive the sacraments. See Code of Canon Law c. 213 & c. 843 §1, below. 4/x

So bishops have to be careful to avoid placing limitations upon reception of the sacraments beyond those limitations that are permitted by law.
Per c. 843 §1, a member of the faithful may be prevented from receiving a sacrament if he or she is not properly disposed. 5/x

For example, some priests & bishops have refused Eucharist to folks who approached wearing a rainbow sash. Canonically, they had the right to refuse, for using Communion to voice protest is an abuse of the sacrament. One who tries to do so isn't properly disposed to receive. 6/x

Being properly disposed also means accepting (or at least working toward accepting) Catholic teaching on faith and morals. In Bishop DeGrood's new policies, he tries to delimit what such acceptance means with regard to transgender issues. That's where he runs into problems. 7/x

In the policy document (page 4: s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2213…), he defines "transgender lifestyle" in broad and ambiguous terms--see below. This is, quite simply, a terrible definition--if it even merits to be called a definition. 8/x

If "transgender lifestyle refers to an individual who regularly and publicly demonstrates behaviors that are consistent with the other gender or that violate cultural norms for personal conduct," then that would put St. Joan of Arc on the wrong side of @SFDiocese policy. 9/x

Truly, what does "behaviors that are consistent with the other gender" mean? If I speak with a deep voice, does that make me transgender? If I scratch my armpit? If I wear pants? And, as for "violate cultural norms for personal conduct"--whose culture does the bishop mean? 10/x

Does Bishop DeGrood mean cultural norms of @SFDiocese schools? Then why not specify what those norms are?
So already DeGrood is employing a definition of "transgender lifestyle" that is so obscure as to be meaningless. But then he makes it the basis of restrictive policies. 11/x

This brings us to his adult Baptism policy & his Confirmation policy, below. In both cases, Bishop DeGroot says people who are "living a transgender lifestyle," or are considering or undergoing transition, should be delayed from receiving until they accept Church teachings. 11/x

There are many problems with those policies, but they boil down to the same thing.
Here's the issue --
As noted, for an adult who's "sui compos" (mentally competent), being properly disposed to receive sacraments entails accepting Catholic teaching on faith and morals. 12/x

But Bishop DeGrood's definition of "transgender lifestyle" (see below again) doesn't include denial of Catholic teaching--again, not unless St. Joan was in such denial.
As for his implication that considering transitioning, or having transitioned, merits delaying reception: 13/x

I appreciate that DeGrood wants those who are baptized or confirmed to accept Church teaching. But his ambiguous language places upon people with gender dysphoria an unjust obstacle to sacramental reception. He can't simply assume they're obstinately denying the faith. 14/x

Relevant to this point is a 2000 CDF document that said
although the Church recognizes only a person's birth sex, sexual-reassignment surgery could be morally acceptable in certain extreme cases to relieve inner turmoil (i.e., gender dysmorphia). ncronline.org/news/vatican-s… 15/x

(The document in question was originally used only internally at the Vatican. But in 2003 the CDF shared it with US bishops after it received a complaint that then-Bishop Raymond Burke was set to receive the final vows of a transgender nun--see riverfronttimes.com/news/bishop-ta….) 16/x

DeGrood's policy on the Eucharist, unlike that on Confirmation and adult Baptism, tries to distinguish between those "publicly living a transgender lifestyle or undergoing a transition" & those with gender dysphoria. The former are blocked from receiving; the latter aren't. 17/x

But here DeGrood's ambiguity puts him on even shakier ground. Again, a bishop may not go beyond the law with respect to restricting reception of Eucharist. Perhaps he thinks he's justified under c. 915, as it speaks of those "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin." 18/x

But grave sin, being mortal, requires "full knowledge & deliberate consent." It's generally accepted that very few people deliberately choose to be transgender. Rather--to borrow the Catechism's language on homosexuality--it "constitutes for most of them a trial" (CCC 2358). 19/x

Summing up:

I support the Catholic teachings that Bishop DeGrood wishes to uphold. But I'm deeply disturbed that, in his effort to implement them, he's infringing upon the sacramental rights of people who are not necessarily "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin." 20/x

To that end, I would like to put my canonical knowledge to use for people in @SFDiocese. If your sacramental rights are personally being infringed by Bishop DeGrood's new policies, DM me or email me (address here: dawneden.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.ht…). (21/x)

Although I can't yet call myself a canon lawyer (not until my thesis is accepted--soon!), I am willing to be a volunteer advocate, writing letters and making the appropriate recourse for those whose rights are being harmed.

My DMs are open.

(22/end)

Here is a link to read this thread on a single page: threadreaderapp.com/thread/1563439…

Posting this tweet here so I can find it when I need to respond to canon 915 arguments concerning the above thread:

https://mobile.twitter.com/DawnofMercy/status/1563517338862755847

Reader @Sylvan_Cat calls my attention to a 1975 Roman Rota decision that favorably summarizes a Catholic theological argument for transgender people to transition socially in ways that don't affect their canonical/juridical status (see §7, pp. 758-9) ...
scribd.com/document/41371…

...Absent of subsequent juridical decisions or magisterial statements, it provides jurisprudence. It suggests transgender Catholics may present as the opposite sex in the social realm but may not marry as that sex or have their canonical (baptismal) status changed to that sex.

*Thanks to @Sylvan_Cat for pointing out a typo. Where I wrote "gender dysmorphia," read "gender dysphoria."