The , then, is raw material for this week’s discussion, which will prepare for next year’s discussion, which may provide fodder for a document by the Pope.So it’s conducive to something preparatory to something (possibly) advisory. What’s more, it proposed no changes—none—in the doctrine or moral teaching of the Church.
Some modern "theologians" at Vatican II wanted to limit the inerrancy of Scripture to "faith and morals" allowing "errors" in Scripture on historical events, dates etc...
but Pope VI stood by the Church's consistent position.
With such a capacious sense of “orientation”—as something only accidentally linked to disordered sexual desire—one can easily say that it can produce good fruit: e.g., what the Catechism calls “disinterested friendship” to which same-sex attracted persons are called.
Some Catholics who firmly accept the Church’s teaching and live by it view “orientation” in this sense as the sign of a special to a sort of ministry of deep but decidedly non-sexual friendship.
Although the Church cannot admit people to Holy Communion while they live in a presumptively adulterous relationship, it does call on all Catholics to treat them with acceptance, compassion, and love. Rather, there was a reaffirmation, as one would have expected, of the Church’s moral teachings in their wholeness: sin is sin and must be rejected. Sinners are precious human beings, who must never be rejected. Sinners—which means all of us—must always be loved.
And, again, the hope is that Mass attendance and reports—though it is hardly news—that some bishops expressed the view that “spiritual communion” is not enough.
Indeed, even the temptations that might accompany such an “orientation” can—like any cross—bear fruit in the lives of those who experience them and everyone they affect: in greater sympathy for those marginalized or deemed “abnormal,” for example, and in deeper identification with Christ crucified. It has always been the Church’s belief that out of the brokenness of a fallen creation, God brings good and more good. I myself think that “orientation” and associated terms (“straight,” “gay,” etc.) are too problematic—too misleading, too suggestive of differences as morally and spiritually important as those denoted by “male” and “female”—to be worth using. But—and here’s another critical point—the very bishops who authored the , a puzzled reporter asked Cardinal Erdo of Hungary, who took the lead in presenting it, what the sentence about valuing orientation meant.
He in turn immediately called on Italian Archbishop Bruno Forte to answer it, saying “he who wrote the text must know what it is talking about.” And responded with a clarification that simply explodes the liberal media’s wishful thinking: “The fundamental idea,” he said, “is the centrality of the person independently of sexual orientation.” So, again in line with historic Catholic teaching, the Archbishop declared that the also addressed the situation of those who have attempted remarriage after divorce without a declaration that the first relationship wasn’t a valid marriage.
The gifts, good qualities, and contributions of such persons are affirmed—as they should be—and special mention is made, “without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions,” of the “mutual aid to the point of sacrifice” that persons in such unions sometimes offer in support of each other. One sentence in the treatment of the pastoral care of same-sex attracted persons has generated a good deal of confusion—provoking criticism from traditionally minded Catholics and arousing futile hopes among liberals.