Pages

Tuesday 24 January 2006

Church and State (and the IRS)

IRS Rules Heterosexual Sex is not a Proper Function of the Body

In a ruling (PDF) quoting an outspoken article by the Vatican's advisor on Sexual matters, Dr Paul McHugh in a Catholic Religious Journal, the IRS has ruled that the ability to have heterosexual sex is "not a proper function of the body".

Dr Paul McHugh is best known for once saying that Johns Hopkins' Sexual Disorders Clinic, which treats molesters, was justified in concealing multiple incidents of child rape and fondling to police, despite a state law requiring staffers to report them.

This IRS ruling stated that construction of a neovagina that allowed a transsexual woman to have heterosexual sex was "cosmetic surgery" that does not "meaningfully promote the proper function of the body or prevent or treat illness or disease."

Furthermore, the IRS Counsel, Don Cassano, stated that "there is nothing to substantiate that these {surgical} expences were incurred to promote the proper functioning of the taxpayer's body and only incidentally affect the taxpayer's appearance."

According to the Catholic News Service,
After years of study, the Vatican's doctrinal congregation has sent church leaders a confidential document concluding that "sex-change" procedures do not change a person's gender in the eyes of the church.

Don Cassano's number is 202-622-7900

No comments:

Post a Comment

Anonymous commenters - please add a signature (doesn't have to be your real name) on each post of yours. Anne O'Namus, Norm D. Ploom, Angry from Kent, Demosthenes, or even your real initials, it doesn't matter.

Commenters are expected to be polite to each other, but the same standard doesn't apply to comments regarding me.

Australian commenters are very very strongly advised to publish anonymously. Sydney alone has more defamation actions than the entire USA and UK. Nearly double that of the UK in fact.

As Google does not reliably inform me that a comment has been posted, and I have no control over first publication, I assert that all comments are innocently disseminated under the NSW DEFAMATION ACT 2005 - SECT 32 and similar acts.