If it's somebody you like, you'll twist yourself into a knot defending behavior, no matter how bizarre.
Let me see if I understand. No homosexual men in Catholic seminaries, but a man who turns himself into a woman is OK in a religious order for women.
Isn't a transgender just a legitimized cross-dresser?
I'll HELP you understand: Rome has officially pronounced that no homosexuals should be admitted to the priesthood, (or the seminary for that matter.)
Rome has also (apparently) indicated that this deal, whatever it is, is OK with them.
Please note the common element: Roman statement.
That's not real hard, is it?
Dear sinkspur,
Archbishop Burke has stated that there is more here than meets the eye, and that Rome is aware of it. He states that it is of a confidential nature.
Why would we not give Archbishop Burke the benefit of the doubt in this?
Also, Archbishop Burke assures us that the person in question "in no way espouses a sex change operation as right or good. In fact, she holds it to be seriously disordered."
Do you say that he is lying? On what basis?
It appears that the facts in this case are not really known, and it appears that they may not be suspectible to public knowledge. Thus, we ought to avoid characterizations like this:
"Let me see if I understand. No homosexual men in Catholic seminaries, but a man who turns himself into a woman is OK in a religious order for women."
We really don't know what the story is.
Do you disagree?
sitetest