Denver Newsroom, Aug 20, 2020 / 10:52 am (CNA).-
Sister Simone Campbell, who is set to offer a prayer at the Democratic National Convention Thursday, has declined to take a stand on the morality of abortion protections, and a CNA examination finds donors to her organization, Network Lobby, have links to pro-abortion rights advocacy.
Asked Aug. 19 whether her organization opposes the legal protection of abortion, Campbell told CNA, “That is not our issue. That is not it. It is above my pay grade.”
“It’s not the issue that we work on. I’m a lawyer. I would have to study it more intensely than I have,” Campbell added.
Campbell, 74, is a member and past general director of the Sisters of Social Service, a Catholic religious community. She is the executive director of the Network Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, and received her law degree from the University of California-Davis School of Law in 1977.
During a 2016 interview with Democracy Now, Campbell said more directly that “From my perspective, I don’t think it’s a good policy to outlaw abortion.”
“Our agenda is the economic justice issues,” she told CNA this week. “As the issues of economic justice mean, as Pope Francis talks about so often, the capacity for families to be able to support themselves, to be able to have a roof on their head. A radical thought is that they ought to be able to earn enough from one job to both have time for leisure for a family together as well the capacity to save for the future.”
Campbell is scheduled to deliver the invocation Thursday at the Democratic National Convention. The convention’s announcement cited her group’s work on economic justice, health care, immigration reform, and voter turnout as well as its “Nuns on the Bus” tour.
The Associated Press describes Campbell as a longtime political ally of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden. Biden, a Catholic, has distanced himself from past support for some restrictions on abortion. He has said he will back legal abortion and funding for abortion providers, as well as regulations requiring Catholic employers like the Little Sisters of the Poor to pay for contraception in employee health plans.
The economic agenda of Network Lobby, Campbell told CNA, is “more aligned with Democratic platforms” but the group considers itself “an equal opportunity annoyer” that lobbies members of both political parties.
“We don’t focus on reproductive rights, we focus on trying to ensure life for everyone. As Pope Francis says ‘equally sacred is the care for the born’,” Campbell said.
Campbell was partially quoting Pope Francis’ 2018 apostolic exhortation Gaudete et Exsultate in which the pope stated “Our defense of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development.”
The pope added that the lives of the poor, the destitute, the abandoned, the infirm, the elderly, and others are “equally sacred.”
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that “the right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation.”
Campbell said it is not Network Lobby’s mission to be “in the fight for Roe v. Wade,” the Supreme Court decision that mandated legal abortion nationwide. While she agreed that the dignity of life is inviolable from conception, she added “I’m so tired. How long have we fought over Roe v. Wade?”
“Our economic agenda is to ensure that everyone can flourish, that all life can flourish, and that we can care for our earth,” she said. “Our niche is economic justice.”
Campbell rejected any suggestion her approach might undermine efforts to secure legal protections for the unborn.
“We work for the Pregnant Women Support Act, funding for prenatal care, women’s infants and children funding, making sure pregnant women get the care that they need,” she said. She said there is crossover in ensuring health care for pregnant women, adequate nutrition, and adequate housing capacity “to carry the fetus to term.”
Asked whether her group works with the Democrats for Life of America, Campbell replied: “No. They’re not working on our economic agenda.”
When CNA noted that Democrats for Life has worked on shared issues like paid family leave, she added “But they’re not part of the coalitions we work on. They’re not a lobby, they’re a policy group,” she said.
On Monday Kristen Day, Democrats for Life executive director, said that for the first time at a Democratic National Convention, the pro-life caucus has not been officially recognized at the 2020 convention.
Asked whether her approach might interfere with right-to-life efforts, Campbell was skeptical.
“I don’t believe we have that much power,” she said. “We are a small operation.”
The 2019 tax forms for NETWORK Lobby reported just over $1 million in revenue, compared to $1.2 million in 2018. Funds came overwhelmingly from contributions and grants.
By comparison, the National Right to Life Committee reported about $4.1 million in total revenue in its 2018-2019 fiscal year, compared to $2.8 million in the prior fiscal year. Its political action committee, the National Right to Life Victory Fund, spent about $1.2 million in 2018. The Susan B. Anthony List pro-life advocacy group reported about $12 million in its 2018 fiscal year.
According to CNA’s review of foundation grants to Network Lobby, a review which has not accounted for a majority of the group’s funds, Campbell’s organization has taken grants from major funders who also focus on abortion rights.
From 2012 to 2015 the Ford Foundation gave three grants totaling $350,000 to the Network Education Program to train faith leaders and to elevate their voices regarding “federal budget and tax debates and on policies affecting low- and middle-income populations.”
Cecile Richards, who headed the Planned Parenthood Federation of America from 2006 through 2018, has been a member of the Ford Foundation’s 15-person board of trustees since 2010. Ford Foundation president Darren Walker was a longtime member of the board of the Arcus Foundation, which has funded pro-abortion groups, LGBT advocacy within Christian denominations, and efforts to limit religious freedom in cases where it conflicts with abortion rights and LGBT causes.
In response to a CNA question, Campbell said that if Network took a stand against legal abortion she thought it wouldn’t lose donors.
“I don’t think so. For one, we don’t have a Ford Foundation grant right now,” she said. “Do you know how big the Ford Foundation is? It’s huge. And we’ve had small money. I don’t believe they’ve changed our mission.”
The Ford Foundation has net assets of $13 billion, and gave out some $500 million, its 2018 tax forms show. The organization has historically backed the Catholics for Choice group. Since 2006, the foundation has given over $5 million to the United States, Mexican and Brazilian branches of the pro-abortion rights organization, whose claims to be Catholic have been repeatedly rebuked by the U.S. Catholic bishops.
The foundation has also supported the U.S. bishops’ relief agency Catholic Relief Services and the Catholic Legal Immigration Network.
Another Ford grantee, Faith in Public Life, has received over $3.5 million in 14 grants from the Ford Foundation since 2007. This included a $225,000 grant in 2013 for an immigrant advocacy campaign, including support for Network Lobby’s “Nuns on the Border” bus tour. Network Lobby continues to participate in Faith in Public Life efforts, and endorsed its 2020 voter’s guide.
At least one recent grant to Faith in Public Life has taken a pro-abortion turn. The Ford Foundation gave $400,000 to the group for its Women of Faith 2020 campaign, which aims “to form a stronger vocal base of support for reproductive justice among moderate women of faith, and actively advance these principles through civic engagement.”
Another Network Lobby donor, the Bauman Foundation, has given grants of $20,000 to $50,000 to the Network Education Program in every fiscal year from 2008 through 2019. While the foundation has two Catholic priests on its board of advisers, another board member is Jenny Lawson, Vice President of Organizing and Electoral Campaigns at the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and Planned Parenthood Votes.
Campbell told CNA her group does not ask donors if they are Catholic, but she assumes a majority are Catholic “because we’re a Catholic social justice lobby.”
Among donors who have a relationship with Network, she said, “I don’t know a big donor who isn’t Catholic.” She rejected the idea that NETWORK could be a “dark money” group. That phrase, in her view, is “about money that doesn’t get reported.”
“That’s secret money that gets passed through to candidates and campaigns. Our money is reported in our reporting to the IRS. That’s not dark money.”
“Quite frankly, they’re small amounts over a 10-year period,” she said.
Another donor, the Sixteen Thirty Fund, gave $225,000 to Network Lobby for civil rights, social action and advocacy, according to the fund’s 2018 tax year forms.
Politico has characterized the fund as a “dark money” group. In a November 19, 2019 story, Politico said the Sixteen Thirty Fund spent $141 million on “more than 100 left-leaning causes” in 2018. Only the right-leaning Koch Brothers network and Crossroads network have exceeded those figures in a single year. The Sixteen Thirty Fund gave another $91 million to 95 other groups.
The Nathan Cummings Foundation, another Network Lobby donor, gave a $200,000 grant in 2020 to the group to promote “policies that mend gaps and bridge divides in our country, with a special focus on healthcare, housing rights, and citizenship policies that disproportionately impact women and people of color.” The foundation describes itself as “a multi-generational family foundation, rooted in the Jewish tradition of social justice, working to create a more just, vibrant, sustainable, and democratic society.”
Campbell has pushed back at objections to Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee Kamala Harris’ 2018 criticism of a federal judicial nominee for his membership in the Knights of Columbus. Harris specifically criticized the Knights of Columbus’ pro-life work and its support for marriage as a union of one man and one woman. She questioned whether the nominee was disqualified due to his membership.
Responding to the incident, a Knights of Columbus spokesperson said membership should not be a disqualifier for public service, describing the order as “a charitable organization that adheres to and promotes Catholic teaching.”
In an Aug. 17 essay in the National Catholic Reporter, Campbell argued that Harris “voiced her disagreement with some of the political positions of the Knights of Columbus.”
“I’m a Catholic sister, and I disagree with some of the political positions of Knights of Columbus,” she continued. “So let’s drop this ridiculous attack and evaluate Harris’ record faithfully.”
The Knights of Columbus is the largest Catholic men’s fraternity in the world, with about 2 million members. Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin, in his July 14 letter to the Knights’ Supreme Convention, conveyed the Pope’s greetings and sentiments, and praised the Knights’ “strong and courageous defense of the inviolable dignity of human life from its conception.”
Campbell told CNA said Parolin’s remarks were “great” and “good news.” But she said she would not take part in that effort.
“I don’t agree with their stance as regards to the stance of economic justice,” she said. “They don’t work for increasing wages, they don’t work for ensuring that immigration law is fixed. They don’t work for the marginalized. They would say that’s their niche. I think they ought to expand.”
Asked why Network Lobby cannot expand its work on abortion, she said “because it doesn’t fit in economic justice, which is our mission.”
“The thing that’s so painful for me is the view that only one issue, as important as it is, defines all of Catholicity,” she said. “And it doesn’t. I think we have to have grown-up faith, where we see complexity, just as Pope Francis says.”
The group has previously clashed with the U.S. bishops’ conference. In 2010, when the bishops were working for strong restrictions on abortion and for strong conscience protections in the major healthcare bill known as the Affordable Care Act, Sr. Mary Ann Walsh, director of Media Relations at the USCCB, said the group “grossly overstated whom they represent in a letter to Congress that was also released to media.”
Network Lobby has also backed an LGBT advocacy bill called the Equality Act, opposed by the U.S. bishops. The bishops have said the bill would threaten the right to free speech, conscience and exercise of religion, and would redefine gender in a way that could require women to share restrooms and locker rooms with men who say they identify as women.
Network Lobby has had a longtime relationship with the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, the subject of a Vatican doctrinal assessment published in April 2012 that also mentioned Network Lobby.
That assessment said “while there has been a great deal of work on the part of LCWR promoting issues of social justice in harmony with the Church’s social doctrine, it is silent on the right to life from conception to natural death, a question that is part of the lively public debate about abortion and euthanasia in the United States.”
The Catholic view of family life and human sexuality “are not part of the LCWR agenda in a way that promotes Church teaching,” and the conference statements sometimes disagree with or challenge the bishops, who are the Church’s “authentic teachers of faith and morals,” the assessment said.
[…]
In any case most of the baptised, or those who took vows for the Kingdom rarely get even the Hope for everlasting life God offers to His beloveds in the Paradise, where each man and women enjoy invisible God’s (spousal) Love through opposite sex, who are effectively visible Body of God. Thus how among the n number of ways a sinner can remain in original sin is exposed by this monk and merely display that all humans ending up in eternal death are similarly living up by God’s Fatherly Mercy (not Love), which effectively also nurture potential saints through their life into adults suitable for paradise. May God uses this aspiring person’s efforts to exhibit a miracle there by this person might get a wee hint what God meant when He hints of everlasting bodily life for saints.
The confusion seems to enter into the article about confusion:
(quote) “by allowing a female monk”
There is no such thing as “a female monk”, there is either “a female nun” or more correctly “a nun” or “a male monk” or simply “monk”. Monks mean “man”, “nun” means woman. Hence, a woman cannot be a monk, she can only be a nun – in the Church at least.
Good show.
The fact that the Diocese of Lexington published a statement referring to this individual, a female, as “he” and “Brother” shows where the true confusion lies. The current pontiff’s public declarations of the demonic nature of gender ideology, if not merely a sop thrown to Backwardists, seem worth heeding.
“Risk”?
They succeeded.
I believe what this misguided woman is doing is morally wrong. As a Catholic publication you should know that a diocesan hermit is not a monk. We excuse secular news when they get this stuff wrong but for a Catholic news source one then wonders what else about this story is factual or sensationalized. In other words don’t make it worse than it is and further confuse and already confused Faithful!
It’s a valid question—can a transgender person become a consecrated hermit? Not a question we would have even asked 10 years ago.
He is NOT a monk or member of a specie religious Order while he did receive formation from a Benedictine Abbey. He was NOT a monk of that community! He is a hermit of the Diocese to which he resides and it is that Diocese that he was from that Diocese that received and professed as a hermit. “A hermit is recognized by law as one dedicated to God in consecrated life if he or she publicly professes in the hands of the diocesan bishop the three evangelical counsels, confirmed by vow or other sacred bond, and observes a proper program of living under his direction. Can. 604 §1.”
HE is a she.
“He” is not a he. “He” is a she. A female, XX chromosomes and all that.
First off, we all have to reference that Christian Matson is a self-professed hermit. A hermit is a person who has withdrawn from society and lives a solitary existence; a recluse. There is a big difference between the type of hermit Ms. Matson professes (work in the arts and to live a life of contemplation in a private hermitage), to that of Saint Benedict who professed his life to the Word of God and Prayer.
I am a Benedictine Oblate in Missouri and we just call this type of discussions as Hog-Wash. I am not ignorant to the spin about Dignitas Infinita and I understand the narrative being argued but this person has done nothing to change or alter her sexuality I find only a mental defect for which we should pray for this person.
No! Webster: A hermit is a person living in solitude as a religious discipline. The only concern would be what dicipline is being applied? Is she doomed for Hell? Can her gender transition be reversed, like a vasectomy? Does her family still love and support her/him? We know that current dogma rejects women from ordination, but a celibate trans Nun?
God raise up all exhiled hermits from the ashes of abnormality.
The Church should not put her imprimatur behind social psychosis.
The greater scandal is generated by Bishop Stowe, a successor of the Apostles, for allowing and promoting this diabolical disorientation.
“For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.” (2 Cor 11:13)
You hit the bullseye, Maggie!
Thank you for the affirmation, DeaconEdwardPeitler. I’d love to hear one of your homilies. I’d be willing to bet you give the kind we sorely need to start hearing again in our parishes.
Maggie, there is one online that a parishioner of a parish I was once a member of put there with my permission. If you Google: “Every day is Newtown in America”, you should be able to access it. God bless.
Deacon Edward, I read your fine homily, and it is indeed the kind we should be hearing more often from our American pulpits! It tackles in a unique way the toughest moral issue of our culture today, which tragically we hear so little about.
(Indeed, we hear the least about the most important and toughest moral issues!)
I urge other readers to google and read “Every Day is Newtown in America” by Deacon Ed Peitler
In the Seattle area the only person in the car was ticketed for driving in the high-occupancy-vehicle lane. With him was his dog. The driver explained to the judge that “my dog identifies as a person.”
It is farce to propose this individual posing as a man “raises the danger of scandal”, it is scandalous. The issue is that the Church is put in the position of supporting the position that rejects God’s creation. She has lived her life denying herself. That which motivates this denial is deeply sad – sad for her and her confusion to live a lie while posing as a hermit.
Those that support her position are unworthy of any position of authority and are in a state of rebellion and apostasy. Either they repent or they should be removed.
Love your neighbor.
That Stowe does not recognize the serious mental disorder going on here is disturbing – as a pastoral care issue. He compounds the pastoral malpractice by affirming it as edifying. I can excuse the confused hermit, but the bishop’s behavior has done far more damage to the Church and society – and struggling gender dysphoric individuals – than the hermit ever could. Stowe is more interested in grand-standing and virtue signaling to the progressive wing than he is in the pastoral care of the hermit and others who are afflicted with this disorder. Shame on Stowe.
Spot on. But in regards to the individual claiming to be a hermit…one does not go looking for the limelight with public declarations while simultaneously declaring their vocation to solitude.
This issue can be resolved in a fairly concise manner:
1. Stop referring to a woman as “he.” She is not a monk.
2. Laicize her immediately and impose harsh discipline on the monastery leaders who supported this fraud.
So much could be said but lets keep it simple.
Bishop Stowe facilitated this conundrum. The lack of prudence exhibited by him in this situation and others is grounds for “reassignment.”
And the individual ostensibly desiring to grow in intimacy with the Lord in “solitude” as a “hermit” has a genius for turning the hermitage into center stage enjoying the limelight.
Clerical incompetency and malicious fraudulence have met.
When do we wake up?
They’re all frauds- the hermit and the hermit’s woke bishop. The hermit should shut up, return to the hermitage and take Stowe with him
The hermit is no hermit and apparently there is no hermitage. The individual need return to the closet and be still. They are in an act of public scandal and scaring the horses.
Can we agree, James, that the ersatz hermit should just shut up?
That Stowe would take this person in, is no suprise, and this person knew this when applying to Stowe to be a recognized hermit.
That neither Stowe or this person have a clue about the true hermit life is no suprise, either…both Stowe’s trumpeting of the existence of the hermit, and this person’s own self-publicity show this only a stunt for both…a hermit leads a hidden life.
My question is also one of finances, and if this person self-supporting, in which case, outside official diocean recognition, they could call themselves a Zen elephant, giraffe, or Catholic hermit to their heart’s content.
But if Stowe is using diocese funding to support his own pro-gay agenda via this person, both should be hung out to dry…
That the article focuses only on experts opining that an officially diocese recognized transexual hermit is a scandal, is like an article focusing on experts telling me that night is dark and here are the assorted grades of dark…..oh, really?
Bishop Stowe has long been a staunch advocate for homosexuality, transgenderism, and many things contrary to the Catholic faith. His churches fly gay pride flags, etc.
He also wades into politics, precisely in the manner you would expect. From America Magazine:
“In a strongly worded newspaper column, a Kentucky bishop urged Catholics to consider the church’s full teaching on life and to resist temptations to align themselves with the “Make America Great Again” movement started by President Trump.”
He was upset that during the March for Life, somebody wore a red MAGA baseball cap.
Bishop Stowe also publicly castigated the young man who the media tried to crucify for “smirking” in the face of a Native American drum beater. That kid later won a 200 million dollar lawsuit against CNN for defaming him. I wonder why the good bishop was not sued as well.
Other Stowe headlines “Bishop John Stowe: LGBTQ community an example of “unselfish love.” Stowe gives the headline address at meetings of James Martin’s “Outreach” organization.
You cannot expect such a bishop to uphold Catholic teaching in any way. After years of telling Catholics to do exactly what Pope Francis says, now he ignores Pope Franci’s latest document.
I have a feeling that this woman is quilty of having committed a grave sin of deception. It’s not clear if this current Bishop was the one who granted her permission to become a hermit or a predecessor, but clearly there was deception. It’s one thing if she was living as a self proclaimed hermit, but quite another if she is indeed a hermit living as a diocesan hermit under the supervision and direction of the bishop. In the former case she could well be a mentally ill person who is living in a delusional world. In the latter she would be a woman who has deliberately deceived a bishop over an extended period of time (it takes a matter of years to achieve this status) in order to become something she wasn’t. This is a sin which must be dealt with. Now that it is a public matter, a very clear public statement from the bishop is needed.
Bishop Stowe’s response is what should be expected of him. Pope Francis described the problem with such bishops a few days ago.
….”This wicked serpent, like an unclean torrent, pours into men of depraved minds and corrupt hearts the poison of his malice, the spirit of lying, impiety and blasphemy, and the deadly breath of impurity. These crafty enemies of mankind have filled to overflowing with gall and wormwood the Church, which is the Bride of the Lamb without spot; they have laid profane hands upon here most sacred treasures. Make haste, therefore, O invincible Prince, to help the people of God against the inroads of the lost spirits and grant us victory. Amen” From the Saint Michael the Archangel prayer. In Deliverance Prayers, Fr Chad Ripperger.
Fairly concise, Fraud? Webster: “Fraud is the wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain”. Laisize her? You could give “her” the maximum. She should be sent to jail. Forget her parents.
Will we ever understand one another? Walk in her/his shoes.
Your are already a pretty bad hermit if you seek some sort of public approval of your lifestyle. Be a child of God or not. This is a mockery.
I once wrote here about my “vision” of the reversed sock i.e. how currently the evil is labouring over the Church trying to “reverse” it so to speak, presenting the wrong side as right etc., something along the lines of Bosch’s paintings. Here I see that “reversed sock” again: the twist is trying to pose as a norm – once this new norm is accepted all the Church must be reversed accordingly.
The story with “a trans-hermit” made me recall another story of so-called “elder-virgin” Dosiphey which happened in 18c. Russia which is the direct opposite to what is being discussed.
Dosipheya, a daughter of very wealthy parents, was brought up in a convent by her grandmother who was a nun. When her grandmother became a hermit, the young woman was taken back home. She did not like being in the world and wanted to be a nun but her parents were adamantly against it, wanting her to marry. She ran away to Moscow with an intention to enter a convent but was recognized so she dressed in a male peasant dress. Because she was tall and somewhat masculine looking, she was accepted to the male monastery as a novice with the name Dosiphey” (a male form of her name). Unfortunately, in a while she was recognized again by some visitors of the monastery so she ran away to Kiev.
There she settled in a cave in a proximity of a male monastery. Everyone thought she was a male ascetic. With years she became known as one who can read hearts and discern the souls and people would stream to the hermit for advice. She spoke to people but never showed her face. Her fame was so big that even the Empress visited her and by her order “Dosiphey”was clothed as a monk (I presume the empress also thought Dosiphea was a man). She became an official hermit in the monastery. At some point Dosiphea was visited by her own sister who did not recognize her and gave her the advice not to look for those who hid themselves for the sake of God.
Her death was holy; she asked forgiveness from each of brethren in the monastery and was found dead the next day kneeling before icons. In her hand was found a note in which she stated that her body is prepared for the burial so it should be buried as it is. She died in her fifties.
She was venerated as the blessed (a monk) by the brethren and many others. When her sister visited the monastery again, she recognized her sister in the portrait of the blessed Dosiphey. This is how her story became known.
This story shed some light on the “reversed sock” of a trans-hermit. Dosiphea, a woman, chose to pose as a man because there was no other way to hide herself and to have safety living in a cave. She lived in a total obscurity, being dead to the world even more than the regular monks.
Seems like she began her career as a hermit by lying about her real sex. Not a good way to start the religious life. Then announces her status which causes further scandal. Shame on the Bishop for acting like all of this is OK.
Ah, these people, they claim to want natural and are hysterical about the way that humans have harmed this poor planet – but no problem disregarding or mutilating the way that God naturally made them.
All the other animals seem to figure this one out, quite naturally!
Bishop John Stowe.
Religion News Service.
No need to read further.
Peace my friends
I have read many comments that condemn this woman and the Bishop for not casting the first stone. John 8:1-11 What did Jesus say: Didn’t even one of them condemn you?” 11 “No, Lord,” she said. And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.” Adultery v Posing as a male – Again, strong comments here.
Do you even know any folks that are transgender? I worked at the Outpatient Pharmacy of The Christ Hospital for years. We had a Doctor in the Medical Office Building that did gender reassignment procedures. Sorry, I did not know any female transitioning to male patients. I did know many male patients transitioning to female. There was not one of these patients that was doing this because it was a fad or popular, these were people trapped in a male body that did not have one male trait.
This should break your heart not bring out condemnation. Go on, throw the first stone you hypocrites. Maybe you should read Matthew 25:31-46 to find out what it takes to stay out of Hell.
I find your statement to be a good example of the ideology of the “nice party”, in the Church and in the world. Let us establish some clarity here. (And yes, I knew a transsexual, a biological woman who acquired a male body but it does not matter; why will be said later.)
You wrote: “I have read many comments that condemn this woman and the Bishop for not casting the first stone.”
What is “casting first stone”? – It is to punish for a sin. The woman in your example was about to be punished according to the Jewish law. Our Lord did not interfere until those whose aim was to catch Him on a violation of the law, addressed him. He then asked one who has never sinned to throw the first stone, beginning the execution which would lead to death.
Note that Jesus did not say “she did not sin, drop the stones”. Furthermore, he confirmed she sinned via saying “go and sin no more”. Did Jesus “cast the first stone” via saying that she was sinning = saying the truth? Obviously not. Then, analogically, the commentators here are also not casting a stone but are stating the truth, namely that the Church cannot accept untruth i.e. treating a biological woman as a man. The removal of “the female hermit monk” from the male religious organization and putting her into an appropriate one (female or unisex) would not be a punishment but a restoration of the truth.
You asked: “Do you even know any folks that are transgender?”
Your question is not really relevant because here we are discussing a basic (primitive even) objective truth, that a man cannot be a female and vice versa. The fact that some know transgender people and some do not cannot change this truth – it can only influence the degree of compassion for a human suffering – or may not, if the transgender people whom one knows are obnoxious, just it is the case with any kind of people.
The truth is that hormones and surgery cannot make a man into a woman and vice versa because an appearance does not make them such. A woman who had a double mastectomy b.o. of breast cancer does not become a man; a man who lost his penis due to an accident or developed breasts b.o. a hormonal imbalance or medical treatment does not become a woman. From here follows that the true mercy would be to state to the transgenders the truth i.e.:
“No surgery will ever make you a man (or a woman). You will get an artificial body which has to be supported and maintained via various damaging drugs. If now you are a woman who thinks that she is a man trapped in the female body, after the surgeries you will be a woman literally trapped in the fake of the male body – so you are exchanging a real sex/gender and a real body for a fake sex/gender and a fake body. Hence, what if we try first to do thorough psychotherapy and find out what in your psyche makes you feel this way.”
My study of human psychology (including psychoanalysis) enables me to recognize in many transgenders, who seek to change their bodies, the symptoms which are exhibited by people who suffer borderline personality disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, bulimia/anorexia depression and so on. Very often it is one unhappy boiling mix of pain and self-loathing which simply takes different (available) forms. More often than not this self-loathing stems from early trauma, abuse, toxic family environments and so on – children in such families feel they are not acceptable so they are ready to do anything to be accepted (including self-mutilation, psychological and physical).
My opinion is also informed by the sci-data which shows higher than average incidence of abuse/other troubles in the families of transgenders, and also of emotional incest. I was astonished when one of such people, a biological woman, confessed that although she mentioned anorexia/anxiety, depression etc. and those symptoms were never paid attention to during her interview which led her to mastectomy. “A psychologist” couldn’t care less. Surely, they would say “they wished good to the young woman” (who is now detransitioning). It is well-known now that those who “assess” such people simply usher them towards “a treatment”.
How could it be than that those who say they are so compassionate to the transgenders are in reality do not bother to propose the much less damaging option which will most likely allow them to avoid the surgery, first? – Most likely because they are deluded as a result of believing that a man can become a woman and a woman can become a man. In that, informed by the lie (or a delusion) system of values, those who try to prevent irreversible damage are “unkind” and so on. This is why you see those who hold on to the objective truth “man is man, woman is woman” as “stone-throwers”. Our refusal to accept the lie threatens your “nice” i.e. purely narcissistic, system.