Site, your argument w/Sinky concerns a fact not in evidence: the date of the Vatican document which established that transgendered (?) people are not eligible for religious life, marriage, or Ordination. I don't know the date it was published. The NCR published a story on the Vatican document, early 2003 (1/24?) but I did not reference the article to find the actual original publication date.
Let's assume that the Vat put out its document in late 2002; then all of this falls into place: Burke is approached by Green, asks/gets permission, establishes. Complaint follows; Montalvo refers to various Congregations, the document is published and transmitted.
THEN Burke suppresses, following "updated" Vatican instruction.
That's not an incredible sequence at all. It is very likely that the Vat never addressed the question of transsexuals for religious congregations, after all...
Well, actually, the chronology I suggested is identical.
My point is, once Rome was involved, they did not say anything which would have led Archbishop Burke to say:
"With regard to Sister Julie Green, F.S.J., the recognition of the association of the faithful which she and Sister Anne LeBlanc founded was granted only after consultation with the Holy See."
It appears that there is a serious problem with this quotation. There is no evidence that the association was recognized after consultation with the Holy See. There is evidence that after consultation with the Holy See, the association was suppressed.
sitetest