Can transgender women impregnate other women?

Can a transgender woman who undergoes sex reassignment surgery become a priest?

In my opinion, this is a difficult question to answer. This can already be seen in the level of the answers so far, which unfortunately has to be measured against historically absolutely non-verifiable legends and malicious denigrations of Catholics.

I understand the question as follows: Would the ordination of a transsexual person be valid from the point of view of the Catholic Church? If I misinterpret the question, I'll be taken for granted, but only then do I trust myself to dare to try an answer. In answering, I took the liberty of digging into the topic of the (women's) priesthood, to which the actual answer is given below fat is marked, builds up.

First some clarifications: The comparison with the Protestant Church and Free Churches fails because the understanding of ministry is different there. I don't think that it is part of the self-image of a Lutheran pastor or even a free church pastor to be a priestess.

What is a priest in the sense of the Catholic / Orthodox tradition? One becomes a priest through ordination. Consecration (Ordinatio) is one of the seven sacraments of the (Catholic) Church, i.e. a symbolic act that sacramentally conveys God's closeness and promise of salvation. The consecrated person is graciously given certain powers (authority of consecration) in order to be able to exercise priestly functions in the name of Christ. The sign of this consecration is the laying on of hands. Now it is roughly as follows: the church attributes this priestly authority to the apostles, who in turn were given it by Christ himself. The apostles, in turn, founded churches and passed these official powers on to their successors, the bishops, by the laying on of hands (apostolic succession). Structurally, however, it was soon necessary to pass on parts of this authority to the elders (presbyters), because now every congregation could no longer be headed by a bishop (episkopos, overseer). The three-tier ordo (diaconate, presbyterate, episcopate) has grown historically. In essence, however, bishops, priests and deacons (to a different extent but in the same quality) share in the priesthood of Christ. They take on a serving function, so are tools, if you like, in and for the pilgrim church.

Without wishing to generalize and simplify in terms of denomination: the churches that see themselves in the tradition of the Reformation have not or only partially preserved this understanding of ministry. The fact that women are ordained ministers there has less to do with more acceptance than with the understanding of ministry.

Why are there no priestesses in the Catholic / Orthodox Church? Or: why do women not fit this understanding of ministry? Brief summary: Christ only called men into the circle of the apostles, these have only appointed men as their successors in the episcopate, but the priesthood has its share in it and the three-stage ordo is at its core just this one office. It fits, because Christ, the "eternal high priest" (cf. Hebr 4,14-5,10), from whom this office originates, is himself male.

Pro: The faith of the church is essentially based on tradition. What the Lord instructed his apostles, they passed on, also in office. The direction of Christ is decisive for the actions of the church, not the zeitgeist. The New Testament scriptures make up a significant part of this tradition. So should this be broken in favor of an understanding of ministry, which criteria must meet which, from today's point of view, feel right, but do not really concern the matter itself?

Cons: Is this "traditional hermeneutics" sufficient? Is this traditional argument impregnated against criticism, which is also brought up by many theologians because it is regarded as one-sided?

My Opinion: It is not the case that the (Catholic) Church forbids the granting of the sacrament of consecration to women, but simply does not know it. Although apparently (?) Finally clarified on the magisterial side, this topic will probably (in my opinion understandably) still be the subject of some theological debates. The only problem is: It is precisely our local people's church mentality, which is clinging to convulsively, that makes the original priestly image difficult to convey, especially when bishops are paid correspondingly high salaries. It's a homemade problem. But those who want to introduce demands from outside into the affairs of faith of the church and whose tone is becoming more and more aggressive, do not allow this to be conveyed either. From the outside it looks like this: No female priestess in the church equates to a professional ban for women as in a company, which is unconstitutional. But "being a priest is not the same as" wanting to be a pastor ", i.e. not primarily a profession / job in the secular sense. Anyone who understands" career "in the sense of professional advancement opportunities in this context completely misses the topic and can only have a say if they ecclesiological basics as well as the terms of service and the vocation for it have been clarified. Anyone who thinks the church defines itself through the clergy in relation to the "club members" and throws around combat terms such as "modernity" and "enlightenment" is a populist and would so that even philosophical schools do not necessarily get any further. But I also think that those who defend "tradition" all too persistently in the debate make themselves suspicious of ideology. Fortunately, the church not only functions through the three-tier office, but also in the many areas that for their part, through baptism and confirmation, they have a share in the priesthood of Christ that should not be underestimated - unthinkable without women t in pastoral work! If the above is not enough for you, and this is the case with many Catholics, you will rightly express criticism and deserve an appreciative answer instead of abrupt rejection. But this problem is an ecclesiastical one with sacramental dimensions, to which our ideas of a secular society, which in turn no longer know about these dimensions, are not sufficient.

Back to the real question:

Before we can speak of acceptance or permission for the ordination of transgender people, the following question must be clear: Is it valid?

Two things are required for the (legal) assessment of a sacrament and an office and their effect: permissibility and validity. For example, the priestly ordinations within the Pius Brotherhood were forbidden, but valid - and although suspended, these priests were able to celebrate the Eucharist. The criteria, whether valid or invalid, come from two sources of law: divine law (ius divinum), of which the church is convinced that it cannot be changed and to which it is faithfully committed, and purely ecclesiastical law (ius mere ecclesiasticum), which could be adapted to the requirements. Two examples: The marriage between siblings is invalid (divine right), as is confirmation by a priest who does not have the appropriate episcopal authority to do so (purely ecclesiastical law, but this case can be repaired so that the person confirming is not at a disadvantage). The Church is convinced that the valid recipient of the (priestly) ordination is the baptized man and that this is the right of revelation (divine right).

Transsexuality naturally questions the underlying gender concept. I think that this challenge was not yet so relevant to be considered theologically so that there are magisterial decisions about it. So short answer: I dont know.

I am sorry if the impression arises that people are the pure object of such canonical-theological finger-tips. My main aim was to show that the "problem" on which the question is based cannot simply be explained by a lack of acceptance towards certain people, even if people outside the church community think they know better. In spite of this, the church is also composed as a human community in this world and as such is by no means free of errors. There is a lot of cleaning required. But that does not justify the fact that some self-appointed church critics make it so easy for themselves and press "the" Catholic Church and thus all Catholics into its distorted ecclesiological picture.