It is hypocritical to be so selective in one’s opposition to sin as to single out homosexuals as somehow particularly sinful. When Catholics everywhere turn a blind eye to straight couples living together out of wedlock, or using birth control, or what have you, there is all manner of sexual immorality to be overcome. So why is it that so many Catholics are outraged at homosexuality more so than other forms of sexual immorality? It can only come down to intolerance.
The movement to make everyone, including Catholics, accept sodomy as normal is a relatively recent, loud, and insanely fast-growing one. It’s also one that hasn’t yet taken root in the acceptance of public opinion quite yet, as the others have. So we can better warn hearts and minds about this matter now. Sodomy is more gravely evil and perverse than premarital sex, and I believe artificial contraception, too.
I added the emphasis on your word choice of ‘intolerance,’ because I think it somewhat betrays a bias on your part. How exactly are we supposed to tolerate the evil of sodomy?
We must show the same love to homosexuals as we do to straight people who have sex prior to marriage, or married couples who use contraception. But, tragically, that is not what is happening. Too many in the Church are fixated on eradicating homosexual sin while turning a blind eye to other types of sin. But the fact is that all such behaviors are sin, and all sin is equally an affront to God. So why selectively **persecute **homosexuals? It is rank hypocrisy.
The HHS mandate pops up and suddenly Bishops start emphasizing the immorality of artificial contraception and other sinful practices against the goodness of sexuality, marriage, and family. I suspect you’d rather we not increase our condemnations of the rest of the sins, but instead simply reduce our condemnation of sodomy. Except, while obviously sin qua sin is all equal in its offensive disobedience to God’s commands, it’s not the case that all evil acts are equally evil. Some acts are worse and more damaging than others. Murder is worse than petty theft, as I’m sure you would agree. I further think it’s safe to assume you’d condemn a serial killer’s actions more than a pickpocket’s.
I again placed emphasis on a word, ‘persecute,’ that reveals your confusion re: this topic. You’re smuggling in a accusation against us, of outright persecution, but hidden within a question, instead of using a more fitting word like, say, ‘highlight,’ or ‘focus’ at that spot. You haven’t established that Catholics oppress or harass homosexuals, so be careful with your uncharitable language.
People outside the Church can sense this deep hypocrisy. They may not be able to put a fine point on it, but it is apparent that the Christian outrage against homosexuals is selective and based on prejudice against homosexuals rather than anything rational. Were Catholics truly rational then the outrage against sin would be applied evenly. You ought to get just as outraged when a couple lives together out of wedlock as when a gay couple does so. You ought to treat a sexually active homosexual as kindly as you treat a sexually active straight person.
First, the Church probably needs to learn how to be
less concerned about its public image at the moment. Most of our enemies will hate us regardless, so we’d be foolish to cater to their constantly “playing hard to get” while possibly letting ourselves be lured onto their turf trying to save what doesn’t want to be saved. Prudence is to be applied.
The sentence I put in bold is almost beneath addressing. I doubt you take its logical consequences upon your own conscience, too. Do you express or feel the exact same amount of outrage at someone who gets drunk once a month as you do for someone who commits rape with the same frequency? If I thought about it longer I’m sure I could come up with an even more illustrative
reductio ad absurdum (in case you were planning on trying to equate the two drastically different sins).
Do you not understand that, given finite time, resources, energy, etc., one’s prudence will have to dictate which subjects are to be accorded more/less focus and attention on a priority basis? Circumstances are relevant. Some issues will be more pertinent than others on different days. This explains why the Pope is addressing the Bishops about family issues now instead of, say, Arian heresy.
And furthermore, why the fixation on sexual sin? There is so much sin out there to be outraged about.
I’m starting to get a feeling that you don’t want us to be outraged over any sin at all. I hope the silence re: all sinful activity would be just incidental, not an intentional result to you.
Why have Catholic news sites not written screeds against rudeness, or lack of charity, or aggressive driving, or skipping Mass, or any of the other countless sins that we encounter in our daily lives? Did you all forget that even a sin that is otherwise venial, when done in willful contempt of God, is a mortal sin? So when you are rude to somebody, despite having been told by Christ to love everyone, you are dancing dangerously close to mortal sin. When you focus on the sins of others and ignore the plank in your own eye, you shut yourself down to true repentance.
To those Catholics getting so worked up about gay marriage and such, you should worry more about saving your own souls, because that kind of judgmental attitude puts you in far greater mortal peril than any homosexual.
Throughout this entire post, but especially in this last sentence, you seem to be
judging us for some sort of hypocrisy, that is, instead of worrying strictly about your own soul. Irony. (I won’t say it’s sinful, since I’d
expect you to warn us of danger if you truly are convinced we’re threatening our souls with sin.)
Apparently you haven’t been paying attention? 
