Attempts to Re-Define Marriage, Change Gender, Transhumanism

04-02-2023Weekly Reflection

….“(I)n the attempt to create a new type of human being one can recognize an ideological element in which man tries to take the place of his Creator”
— Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith

"'Man,'" I cried, "'how ignorant art thou in thy pride of wisdom!'"
— Frankenstein, The Modern Prometheus

The moment…a will of (claimed) absolute independence and of power without limits clashes on all sides with the being it has not brought about, what remains to it other than to throw itself into revolt against what is and to seek help in outbursts of violence that nothing can appease. For all being becomes truly unbearable to it, whether it be the things of God or its own being. This is why in its rage at not being able to create, man becomes anti-creative. “
— Social Progress and Revolution

The Committee on Catholic Doctrine of the U.S. Bishops has issued a “Doctrinal Note” on manipulations of the human body and Catholic teaching. https://www.usccb.org/resources/Doctrinal%20Note%202023-03-20.pdf Here are some bullet-points:

Modern technology offers an ever-increasing range of means—chemical, surgical, genetic—for intervening in the functioning of the human body, as well as for modifying its appearance. Modern technology, however, produces possibilities not only for helpful interventions, but also for interventions that are injurious to the true flourishing of the human person. Careful moral discernment is needed to determine which possibilities should be realized and which should not, in order to promote the good of the human person. To do this discernment, it is necessary to employ criteria that respect the created order inscribed in our human nature.

A fundamental tenet of the Christian faith is that there is an order in the natural world that was designed by its Creator and that this created order is good (Gen 1:31; Ps 19:1ff.) We did not create human nature; it is a gift from a loving Creator. Nor do we “own” our human nature, as if it were something that we are free to make use of in any way we please. Thus, genuine respect for human dignity requires that decisions about the use of technology be guided by genuine respect for this created order

A crucial aspect of the order of nature created by God is the body-soul unity of each human person. The soul does not come into existence on its own and somehow happen to be in this body, as if it could just as well be in a different body. A soul can never be in another body, much less be in the wrong body. This soul only comes into existence together with this body. What it means to be a human person necessarily includes the body

The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms: “Man and woman have been created, which is to say, willed by God: on the one hand, in perfect equality as human persons; on the other, in their respective beings as man and woman. ‘Being man’ or ‘being woman’ is a reality which is good and willed by God.” The importance and the meaning of sexual difference, as a reality deeply inscribed in man and woman, needs to be noted. “Sexuality characterizes man and woman not only on the physical level, but also on the psychological and spiritual, making its mark on each of their expressions.” It cannot be reduced to a pure and insignificant biological fact, but rather “is a fundamental component of personality, one of its modes of being, of manifestation, of communicating with others, of feeling, of expressing and of living human love.” This capacity to love – reflection and image of God who is Love – is disclosed in the spousal character of the body, in which the masculinity or femininity of the person is expressed.

Here are essentially two scenarios recognized by the Church’s moral tradition in which technological interventions on the human body may be morally justified: 1) when such interventions aim to repair a defect in the body; 2) when the sacrifice of a part of the body is necessary for the welfare of the whole body. These kinds of technological interventions respect the fundamental order and purpose inherent in the human person. However, there are other technological interventions that aim neither to repair some defect in the body nor to sacrifice a part for the sake of the whole but, rather, aim to alter the fundamental order of the body. Such interventions do not respect the order and purpose inscribed in the human person

While the foregoing two types of technological interventions take the basic order of the human person as a given and do not intend to alter it, there is another type of intervention that regards this order as unsatisfactory in some way and proposes a more desirable order, a redesigned order. Procedures used on cells of the body for strictly therapeutic purposes are in principle morally licit” since these procedures “seek to restore the normal genetic health of the patient or to counter damage caused by genetic anomalies or those related to other pathologies.” By contrast, genetic engineering “for purposes other than medical treatment” is not morally permissible. Here the intention is to replace the natural order with what is imagined to be a new and better order.

In a similar way, some proposals for “computer enhancement” also aim to redesign the fundamental order of the human being and to produce a new type of human being (transhumanism) by replacing some or all bodily organs with artificial cyber devices. These kinds of technological interventions are, in most cases, currently in the developmental stage or are under theoretical consideration.

What is widely in practice today, however, and what is of great concern, is the range of technological interventions advocated by many in our society as treatments for what is termed “gender dysphoria” or “gender incongruence.”These interventions involve the use of surgical or chemical techniques that aim to exchange the sex characteristics of a patient’s body for those of the opposite sex or for simulations thereof. In the case of children, the exchange of sex characteristics is prepared by the administration of chemical puberty blockers, which arrest the natural course of puberty and prevent the development of some sex characteristics in the first place.

These technological interventions are not morally justified either as attempts to repair a defect in the body or as attempts to sacrifice a part of the body for the sake of the whole. These interventions involve the use of surgical or chemical techniques that aim to exchange the sex characteristics of a patient’s body for those of the opposite sex or for simulations thereof. In the case of children, the exchange of sex characteristics is prepared by the administration of chemical puberty blockers, which arrest the natural course of puberty and prevent the development of some sex characteristics in the first place.

These technological interventions are not morally justified either as attempts to repair a defect in the body or as attempts to sacrifice a part of the body for the sake of the whole. First, they do not repair a defect in the body: there is no disorder in the body that needs to be addressed; the bodily organs are normal and healthy. Second, the interventions do not sacrifice one part of the body for the good of the whole. When a part of the body is legitimately sacrificed for the sake of the whole body, whether by the entire removal or substantial reconfiguration of a bodily organ, the removal or reconfiguring of the bodily organ is reluctantly tolerated as the only way to address a serious threat to the body.

Here, the removal or reconfiguring is itself the desired result. Rather than to repair some defect in the body or to sacrifice a part for the sake of the whole, these interventions are intended to transform the body so as to make it take on as much as possible the form of the opposite sex, contrary to the natural form of the body. They are attempts to alter the fundamental order and purpose of the body and to replace it with something else. Catholic health care services must not perform interventions, whether surgical or chemical, that aim to transform the sexual characteristics of a human body into those of the opposite sex or take part in the development of such procedures. They must employ all appropriate resources to mitigate the suffering of those who struggle with gender incongruence, but the means used must respect the fundamental order of the human body. Only by using morally appropriate means do healthcare providers show full respect for the dignity of each human person.

Biological sex and the socio-cultural role of sex (gender) can be distinguished but not separated.” …. Let us not fall into the sin of trying to replace the Creator. We are creatures, and not omnipotent. 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. Neither patients nor physicians nor researchers nor any other persons have unlimited rights over the body; they must respect the order and purpose inscribed in the embodied person. The body is not an object, a mere tool at the disposal of the soul, one that each person may dispose of according to his or her own will, but it is a constitutive part of the human subject, a gift to be received, respected, and cared for as something intrinsic to the person.