NOBODY here ever suggested that truly repentant trannies be denied Baptism. NOBODY!

Why then did you feel compelled to cloud the discussion by feigning that we proposed denying Baptism? or that trannies "cannot" be Baptised.  Why???

We were crystal clear, narrowly focused on a very specific aspect, public Baptism of seemingly unrepentant trannies, and that record remains for all who read the thread to bear witness.

The practicing Catholics here objected to the public Baptism of Trannies because of the scandal, especially in cases that publicly appeared non-repentant.  Nobody objected to their Baptism. Nobody questioned the efficacy of Baptism, yet you turned contortions to cloud the matter by invoking hermaphrodites, and pretended that we did question the efficacy of Baptism, pretended that we objected to the Baptism of any trannies. You tried to use unwilled congenital defects (hermaphroditism) to support public Baptism of willfully mutilated trannies in public!

You threw all manner of diversion into the discussion, including nonsense about beards and breasts not being impediments to Baptism.

For 8 months you have done your worst to cloud the issue simply to avoid admitting that it causes scandal to publicly Baptise transɛҳuąƖs who appear unrepentant.

It took you 8 months to finally admit: "Of course there is [a difference between willed and unwilled acts]."
And even with that admission you continue to cloud the narrow question by re-asking what has long been answered. So, for the umpteenth time in this thread:

NOBODY here ever suggested that the truly repentant trannies be denied Baptism. NOBODY!
NOBODY here ever questioned the efficacy of Baptism. NOBODY!

We were all clear on these points. We were repeatedly clear on all these points. Yet 8 months later, this very day, you pretend to be unclear on that. At this point I can only wonder why you invested so much effort in evasion, diversion, avoiding admitting "Of course there is [a difference between willed and unwilled acts]."

Thanks Mark. I was thinking the same thing, it seems he’s being disingenuous.

Can an unrepentant sinner be baptized?  Of course, you simply pour the water in his head and say the form.

Is it illicit?  Yes.  Is it a sacrilege?  Yes. Is the unrepentant sinner in a state of grace afterwards, no. 

The just baptized unrepentant sinner is now in state of mortal sin.. actual sin, not original.

This is moral theology 101.

Exactly as you said!

You are addressing the guy who posts from St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa, but has spent 8 months in evasion, diversion, conflation, bait-and-switch, and obfuscation all to avoid application of the simplest catechetical principles on sin, repentance, and scandal—matters that Catholic grammar school children understand.

He didn't even type a full stand-alone admission.  He left his acknowledgment at "Of course there is…."  He could have said, "Of course there is a difference between willed and unwilled acts…," but didn't. Why the reticence for clarity on this point that he evaded for so long?

Why does the resident "expert" on St. Thomas Aquinas who also quotes excerpts from Canonists and Saints turn contortions to avoid the most basic truths about sɛҳuąƖ mutilation?

He could have said, "Of course there is a difference between willed and unwilled acts…," but didn't.

Why do you keep bringing up this distinction? I fail to see how it bears on whether they can be baptized.

From what I can tell, the operative word for Geremia is "can".  But there are a lot of things that we can do, but that doesn't mean we should do.  

Earlier in the thread the talk was about valid vs licit.  A transgender baptism would be illicit.  In other words, you can't licitly do it.  Yes, of course, someone could illicitly do it, but it would be sacrilegious.  

The issue here is that the so-called pope now allows this illicit baptism to be LICIT.  And that should be condemned, not explained away.