Watch him become completely silent on these issues upon completion of the synod.  I don't think he'll "embrace" the issues but he will keep his opinions to himself.  He doesn't govern a see so there will be no issues with going "against the grain".

The same Burke who received the vows of a "transgendered" "nun"?

I used to think that he was one of the legit orthodox men within the Conciliar structure.

Then I saw a video of him, totally apostatizing with regards to "Hebrew Catholics." I was just in awe the sort of bold lying heresies he was advocating with regards to the blind Jєωs. Its not surprising really, because Vatican II encoded that attitude in official law, I guess it just shocks you every time when you see it.

Do you have proof of what you are saying with regards to the transgendered nun?

My opinion on Mr. Burke, is that he represents what is called fαℓѕє fℓαg opposition. Whether he knows it, or simply ignorant of it. He belongs to that Republican conservative religion, that has only the externals of the Catholic faith, but none of the substance.

The reason why he is anti-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ agenda is for very different reasons, then why we might be against it.

Yet, the Conc. Church will paint him as some sort of champion of Orthodoxy, when he is not even remotely Catholic. He believes along with the majority of the Conciliar clergy, that the covenant of the Jєωs is still valid despite, Cantate Domino and other ex cathedra statements. They don't even attempt to hide their Judaizing, they flaunt it as orthodoxy!

Quote from: ThomisticPhilosopher

Do you have proof of what you are saying with regards to the transgendered nun?

I don't have time to find it again, but this was asked and answered on the forum just a week or so ago.

In any event, try a google search.  Contemporaneous news stories are relatively easy to find.

Okay I think I found it, http://newwaysministryblog.wordpress.com/2014/07/14/transgender-woman-prepares-to-enter-carmelite-convent/ .

Now I know you are usually very good at giving your sources. I guess the only thing I wanted to say, is when you make a claim as big as that its always a good thing to accompany it with a link. Or atleast a to do post later. Some sort of effort indicating that you will answer the question at some point.

Now, this case is quite sad. If he was living as a male, for the first 30 years, then why not simply continue to live as one? That condition is unfortunate, but mutilating through medicines, or surgery (not what is happening here). Is not the solution. Ultimately his psyche is either male or female, not in between and that is what is important. Not the cosmetic stuff which transgendered folks seem to care so much about. Ultimately this person is really diabolically disoriented, and it is sad to see how even high grade "theologians" seems to be seconding his opinion.

I would need to read a few more details to really give a better commentary but just based off that link. It tells me that he is not following proper Church teaching, and principles.