In July 2023, a Brazilian bishop asked the Vatican whether a transsexual person could receive baptism and posed other similarly contentious questions while awaiting official clarification. The answer has now been communicated by the Vatican in a document issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, giving rise to numerous contradictory interpretations.
On July 14th, Bishop José Negri of Santo Amaro in Brazil submitted to the Vatican a list of sensitive questions on social issues. The prelate asked whether a transsexual could receive baptism, whether a transsexual could be chosen as godfather or godmother, and whether a child born of a surrogate mother could be baptised.
The responses in the affirmative, with qualifications, were communicated in a document in Italian, dated October 31st, and were immediately interpreted by the press as a sign of progressive openness on the part of the Church. Despite the use of the word ‘transessual’ (transsexual) in Italian, and an explicit definition as transsexual adults “who had also undergone hormone treatment and sex reassignment surgery,” these distinctions were ignored by those who celebrated the document.
Father James Martin, a Jesuit known for his support for LGBT rights in the Church, for example, welcomed the document on X, which he interpreted as a legitimisation of LGBT mores: “an important step forward in the Church seeing transgender people not only as people (in a Church where some say they don’t really exist) but as Catholics.”
The dicastery’s responses are said to be in line with traditional Church teaching. On closer examination, it is true that there is nothing fundamentally revolutionary about the Vatican’s responses to the Church’s traditional teaching on baptism. However, the obvious conditions set out as safeguards in these very special cases run a high risk—given the prevailing Zeitgeist—of not being respected and give rise to fears of numerous abuses.
To the first question—can a transsexual receive baptism?—the document answers in the affirmative, provided there is no public scandal or open desire to stir up trouble on the part of the candidate. Baptism, in cases where the objective moral situation of the applicant remains in doubt, must be understood as a door open to grace, “since God’s unconditional love is capable of creating even with sinners an irrevocable covenant, always open to development, even if unforeseeable.”
The second question leads to a more complex answer: can a transsexual be chosen as a baptismal godparent? The answer is yes, provided that the adult chosen has undergone the surgical and hormonal treatment. The document points out, however, that there is no “right” to be a godfather or godmother, and that pastoral prudence should therefore advise against choosing transsexuals for this role, and that scandal or undue legitimisation of sexual change must be avoided at all costs.
The third question concerns the choice of a transsexual person as a marriage witness. There are no reservations in this case, just as there are in the case of a witness who is in a same-sex union.
The fourth question deals with the baptism of a child born to a surrogate mother with homosexual parents. The child’s mode of procreation and birth should in no way prevent its baptism, insofar as it is not responsible for the life choices of its parents. However, caution must be exercised, as there is a good chance that one of the essential conditions for the liceity of a baby’s baptism—that the child be brought up in the Catholic faith—will not be met by a couple who have chosen to have a child in a way that openly contradicts Church law. The text specifies that there must be “the hope” that the child will be brought up in the Catholic faith. It is to be feared that this condition will not be respected with all due vigilance—as is in fact already the case for a growing proportion of infant baptisms today, including in traditional families with a biological father and mother, such is the extent of de-Christianisation. Baptism is often reduced to a social ceremony devoid of any religious commitment, tolerated by a complacent clergy on the grounds that it is necessary to “leave the door open.”
Finally, the fifth question asks whether a homosexual person can be chosen as godfather or godmother. Serious reservations are expressed here, insofar as the godfather or godmother, according to canon law, must “lead a life in keeping with the faith and the office he or she assumes” (can. 685), which is obviously not the case for a homosexual person living in a couple. The document does, however, express the possibility of someone other than the godparent being responsible for the proper transmission of the faith to the child, thereby diluting the actual responsibility of the godparent and opening the way to all possible and imaginable choices, as long as someone else in the child’s entourage is there to ‘do the job.’
Once again, a document issued by the Vatican that is supposed to shed light on high-risk situations is likely to leave the faithful perplexed. While the text is a charitable reminder that God’s infinite grace sometimes takes steep paths through unexpected baptisms, on such sensitive matters of morality, a clearer reminder of the sinful nature of homosexuality would certainly have been welcome for good measure … but Archbishop Fernández, the new prelate at the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, certainly didn’t intend it that way.
