If she says homosexuality is a sin, she's seen as unfit to deal with questions of equality. If she says it isn't, no one will believe her anyway, or will accuse her of cherry-picking Catholic teachings.
My feeling is that most of the people who would see her as unfit in the first case would be mostly satisfied by her saying it isn’t a sin — they’d still be sensitive and vigilant about it, but they’d stop banging on about it so much. Mostly other people would accuse her of cherry-picking her beliefs. (Not saying it’s not a problem for her — just that most people out there aren’t being hypocritical about this.)
Would they actually believe her, though? I know I wouldn't be particularly convinced by an Opus Dei member claiming they rejected a core Church teaching.
As I said, the whole issue would be simpler if she'd been asked about her political beliefs instead of her personal religious ones--but that's British suspicion of overt religion for you. (Not that American evangelical conservatives are the best example out there, but there are plenty of Democrat church/synagogue-goers too.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
My feeling is that most of the people who would see her as unfit in the first case would be mostly satisfied by her saying it isn’t a sin — they’d still be sensitive and vigilant about it, but they’d stop banging on about it so much. Mostly other people would accuse her of cherry-picking her beliefs. (Not saying it’s not a problem for her — just that most people out there aren’t being hypocritical about this.)
(no subject)
As I said, the whole issue would be simpler if she'd been asked about her political beliefs instead of her personal religious ones--but that's British suspicion of overt religion for you. (Not that American evangelical conservatives are the best example out there, but there are plenty of Democrat church/synagogue-goers too.)