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
Mary Therese Helmueller, a Burke friend, apparently knows what the story is, and wrote the Papal Nuncio over it.
One can always repent over anything. But the fact that this is "confidential" and there "is more here than meets the eye" simply confirms the story to me. What is intrinsically disordered to Sister Julie now may not have been when she had the surgery. So, she's had a conversion.
If it's OK now to accept repentant transgendereds into religious orders, why not come out and say so? If Rome says it's OK, then let's say it.
Would you go to confession to a transgendered priest?