There are decisions that cannot be explained by clumsiness, nor by oversight, nor even by naivety. There are decisions that are simply irrational. And when someone in the Church acts irrationally in a persistent manner, it is usually because they respond to a logic that cannot be said out loud.
Read also: Cobo entrusts Crismhom (lavender lobby) with the training of seminarians
Placing activists from an ideological lobby to train future priests is not a debatable pastoral option: it is a contradiction in terms. It is the wolf guarding the hens. Not because those people are worse or better, but because their worldview, their categories, and their anthropology clash head-on with what the Church claims to believe and teach.
Therefore, the question is not whether that training is adequate. The question is another: what can move a bishop to place that profile as a formative reference for his seminarians?
We are not talking about an isolated talk, nor a specific conference. We are talking about turning a concrete, militant, and perfectly recognizable approach into a pastoral criterion for those who tomorrow will have to preach, confess, and accompany souls.
That is not plurality. That is direction.
In ecclesial life, there is an unwritten but verifiable rule: when a superior protects, promotes, or strategically places people or currents that objectively erode the doctrine, it is rarely done out of deep theological conviction. Much less out of carelessness. It is usually done because they need those people to be there.
Because self-destructive decisions are not made for free.
When someone acts against common sense, against pastoral logic, and against the peace of their own clergy, only one possible explanation remains: they cannot afford to do otherwise.
We are not talking about crimes or concrete facts. We are talking about power dynamics. Fragile balances. Crossed silences. That very ecclesial way of not falling… as long as no one pushes.
Therefore, more than indignation, what these decisions produce is unease. Because the one who hands over the henhouse to the wolf usually does so not out of stupidity, but because the wolf also holds keys.
This is not an isolated case. It is a pattern that repeats in dioceses, seminaries, and high-level ecclesial structures. Where fidelity to the system is rewarded before fidelity to the faith. Where “accompanying” is confused with abdicating. Where the problem is never the content, but who dares to point it out.