Sunday, May 13, 2012

Yet another case of bad compromise...

Ever notice how the pattern of 'compromise' in cases like these always involves the Church or traditionalist institution giving up some ground, and the liberals gaining some?

I suppose here you can say, "But the diocese stood up, right? They said no officials from the organization could speak, and that the Church's views were to be respected, right?" Yes, that's what they said. But what they said didn't line up with what they did.

The award should not have been presented there. Or better yet, a real compromise should have been reached - the award should have been presented in conjunction with a statement of the full Catholic teaching regarding same-sex attraction, and the difference between accepting people who are different and endorsing the choices they make, or the identities they take on.


Syllabus said...

What exactly is the RCC's teaching re: homosexuality? Do they just condemn homosexual activity or do they also condemn homosexual inclinations?

Crude said...

It's the sexual acts which are condemned. The inclination is viewed as objectively disordered, but not itself a sin - I think the only way an inclination would be considered sinful would be in the same way 'fantasizing about lying/stealing' would be regarded as one.