for or agianst anything that I have ever seen:
A Catholic reader writes: "There's a double standard that drives me up the wall. The bishops are vilified for listening to psychiatric experts who told them that pedophilia could be cured. Everybody's saying now they should have ignored the experts then. Now you've got experts today saying there's no connection between homosexuality and the priest-pedophile scandals. If the bishops ignored them, and refused to ordain active homosexuals, they would be vilified as homophobic."
First of all, the argument here isn't a double standard. The term "double standard" means that one rule is applied to some while another rule is applied to others. The writer here never makes such a case. A more accurate description of what the author is trying to illustrate is, "damned if you do, damned if you don't" or Catch-22 or something similar.
Secondly, the first situation, when the Church "listened to the experts" involves how to treat someone who has illustrated a history of abuse. The second situation involves an entire group of people, most of whom haven't abused anybody. Can the author really see no difference in the two situations besides whther or not the Church "listens to the experts."
Experts also say that living with married parents is the best situation for children. According to this writer, the Church shouldn't be listening to the experts, since they steered us wrong on pedophilia. The Church should stop encouraging marriage, and encourage single-parent households and serial fatherhood with several partners. We can't listen to the so-called "experts."