Ministry with Lesbian and Gay Catholics

[fix]

same sex relationship (assuming it is monogamous adult relationship etc) has no ‘victim’ that has not given their full and knowing consent.

this is why as a society we must make a distinction - you may not agree with their life choices, but all in their relationships WANT to be there.

This is the way that I see it, I understand that you believe they are all ‘disordered’, but I see a definate distinction between the two (victim/non victim…nonconcensual/concensual)

For me, even though you may believe that all of these crimes will be judged in the same way, that does not make them equal on all levels, and identical in every way.

S x

It is not only a name or the definition of a realm which could be identified with just any experience of common life or pairing of individuals, regardless of their different sexuality. When the Constitution protects the family and children it makes unmodifiable, unalterable and definitive for everyone the formulation of marriage proper to the tradition of canonical and civil law, necessarily connected with the different role of the spouses in the experience of procreation.

Closely correlated with the protection of marriage and the family is the condemnation of every arbitrary use of the terms marriage or family for short-lived relationships which duplicate only their external features but not their substance. The Constitution therefore, though prizing liberty, does not loosen the rigorous bonds of substance and language that distinguish marriage and the family; respect for these institutions is indeed the condition for exercising the individual liberties which are otherwise guaranteed and protected. A certain culture, however, would like to reverse the order of these terms, imagining a sort of primordial freedom which would allow juridical manipulations even before biological ones.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/humanity/homo9.htm

 

[setter]

The individual with same-sex attractions who obstinately refuses to pursue their resolution is refusing the cross he has been ordained to carry and is therefore ultimately refusing the Resurrection.

Can you cite any Church documentation to back this idea of yours?

 

[setter]

You may hold back in whatever disorders you have grown accustomed to. I will reach for Christ.

How is any married, single or celibate Christian striving to live chastely not reaching for Christ?

 

[setter]

The only legitimate Christian response is therefore one which redirects the sexuality towards its proper affective ends.

Can you cite any Church documentation to back this idea of yours?

 

[Grace_Angel]

I don’t think that was Abira’s intent. Rather it was to point out that it is misleading to compare sex between two consenting adults with sex involving a minor. The latter is a crime specifically because a minor cannot give consent.

Abira’s intent is to legitimise a “disordered condition”

I read in one of our daily papers yesterday (Aust) that a man in India was forced to “marry a goat” because the owner of the goat found the said man having intrcourse with the said goat. Said man had to pay “dowry” for his said new “bride” the goat. this incidence was taken to the elders of the community who decided that said man having treated goat like a wife, then he should marry her and pay the required dowry.
Now we can sit back and roll on floor laughing, but how long will it be before other “disordered” sexuality will be sought to be legitimised, as sexuality is a “private affair”
We have a climbed on a slippery slope downhill and I am not interested in helping the slide down. Sorry.
I am not homophobe as far I know. I have beautiful homosexual young friends and they know my feelings and understand. We have talked about this interminably and believe it or not, neither of the two of them (they are not partners) want legalisation, or legitimisation of SS relationships. And I love these young men to bits.
Grace Angel.

 

[renee1258]

Can you cite any Church documentation to back this idea of yours?

The Church understands we can’t make them attracted to the opposite sex, but we must love them and offer support with a chaste lifestyle. If we don;t offer freindship, we are only giving them up to the gay culture as their only option.

 

[goofyjim]

I think what our dear friend Other Eric fails to remember is that even St. Paul did not have his “thorn in the flesh” removed but had it left there by the resurrected Christ to keep him humble. This is why I believe that ssa is okay as long as it is not acted on.

 

[Other_Eric]

Can you cite any Church documentation to back this idea of yours?

How is any married, single or celibate Christian striving to live chastely not reaching for Christ?

Can you cite any Church documentation to back this idea of yours?

We must all remember that as the link in the original post demonstrates, we cannot simply label any ministry to those with same-sex attractions good simply because it is marketed to those people and references some warm fuzzies. Such programs have more to do with self-actualization as a virtue rather than any orthodox presentation of the faith. The ministry must keep in mind all of the Church’s teachings regarding sexuality if the ministry is to be expected to bear any fruit.

I tire of repeating myself with the same references to the Catechism in multiple threads which you have, apparently, continued to ignore. The common answer to my argument is to say that as long as the individual in question is being “chaste” that he or she is bearing their cross as Christ intends. Such people have no understanding of what chastity is if they can so crudely equate it with sexual suppression. This is what the Church says that chastity is:

2337 Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. (1)

Since in an individual the sexuality is disordered to the point that it is directed only towards evil, there can be no valid integration and therefore no chastity until the sexuality has become healed to the point where it is properly directed. This is not the first time I have pointed this out to you and I have yet to receive any sort of documented and orthodox alternative to this clear and simple definition provided by the Holy See.

Moreover, the Church recognizes that the sexuality is called into use even in our casual relationships. It forms the very basis for the way that we, as humans, relate to each other. Again (both here and earlier in this thread), from the Catechism:

2332 Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others

.(2)

Emphasis mine. Sexuality, therefore governs not only genital expression, but the very “aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others.” This means that the sexuality is brought into use even in the platonic relationships that men and women have. For one with opposite-sex attractions, this is a valid expression of the sexuality. In one with same-sex attractions, it is a sinful expression of a disordered sexuality whose only possible expression is one of evil.

(continued below . . .)

 

[Other_Eric]

In Sacred Scripture [homosexual acts] are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God.(3)

That one with same-sex attractions can somehow completely separate him or herself from the sexual faculty is an example of ancient heresy.

. . . one of the most dangerous forms of this unrealism is to think that one can live without sexuality. This is the old heresy of manicheism or albigensianism which long ago led to terrible sexual excesses on the part of those who sought to be absolutely pure. These misguided heretics are a reminder that one of the most dangerous sexual unrealisms is the pretense that humans can be angels.(4)

So, what we have here is a condition of the sexuality that must never be expressed under pain of mortal sin. It need not necessarily be an act of genital stimulation to defy the natural law, either. Indeed, as quoted above,

. . . homosexuality has very little to do with sex. (5)

Those who wish to be faithful to the Church need to keep all of this in mind when constructing any sort of ministry to those with same-sex attractions. Since chastity is impossible, by definition, for the person who experiences same-sex attractions, in order to follow the universal call to chastity, the disorder must be healed. Given the stakes to the fabric of society, with same-sex attractions poised to tear it apart, this ought to be a paramount concern.

I now turn this part of the conversation over to you. Can you provide any citation, reference or documentation that would demonstrate that those with same-sex attractions are called to a different standard of chastity that the rest of us? Perhaps you can finally provide me with the alternative definition of chastity that would cover both those with properly ordered sexualities and the deviant in order to maintain the universal nature of the moral law. Can you point out to me any sort of psychological study or orthodox treatise that points to the success of a man or a woman completely divorcing their sexuality from themselves and yet retaining the ability to interact in social setting? Perhaps you have been able to incorporate one or both of those ancient heresies, manicheism or albigensianism, into the Faith in order to accommodate those with deviant tastes. Please provide any reference to an orthodox syllogism which manages this.

(1) Catechism of the Catholic Church. 2003. Available at: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM

(2) Ibid. Available at: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P84.HTM

(3) Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Persona Humana. 1975. Available at: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19751229_persona-humana_en.html

(4) Groeschel, Benedict J. The Courage to be Chaste. Mawah: Paulist Press, 1985. p. 35.

(5) Harvey, John F. The Truth About Homosexuality: the Cry of the Faithful. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1996. p. 122.

 

[rlg94086]

Other Eric,

The Catechism seems pretty clear to me…

Chastity and homosexuality

[2357](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2357.htm’) Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. ***These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. ***
[2359](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2359.htm’) Homosexual persons are called to chastity. ***By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. ***

Why would the Catechism call “homosexual persons” to chastity through “self-mastery” if they are incapable of chastity through self-mastery?

Based on the Catechism, we should have ministries that reach out to people with SSA. If they are active homosexuals, then we should call them to chastity through self-mastery.

If we are to “accept them with respect, compassion and sensitivity,” it would make sense to reach out to them and help them “unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”

I don’t see how you can take the clear teaching of the Catechism and choose to condemn people who have this burden. Until you show me something from the Holy See that actually says that a homosexual person must first heal their inclination, as you suggested, I will continue believing the clear teaching of the Catechism.

If that was required, I believe it would have been written that way in the section of the Catechism I quoted - “Chastity and homosexuality.” Or do you think the Church is deliberately trying to mislead homosexual persons into thinking they can lead chaste lives through self mastery?

God bless,

Robert

 

[Other_Eric]

Other Eric,

The Catechism seems pretty clear to me…

Why would the Catechism call “homosexual persons” to chastity through “self-mastery” if they are incapable of chastity through self-mastery?

Based on the Catechism, we should have ministries that reach out to people with SSA. If they are active homosexuals, then we should call them to chastity through self-mastery.

If we are to “accept them with respect, compassion and sensitivity,” it would make sense to reach out to them and help them “unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”

I don’t see how you can take the clear teaching of the Catechism and choose to condemn people who have this burden. Until you show me something from the Holy See that actually says that a homosexual person must first heal their inclination, as you suggested, I will continue believing the clear teaching of the Catechism.

If that was required, I believe it would have been written that way in the section of the Catechism I quoted - “Chastity and homosexuality.” Or do you think the Church is deliberately trying to mislead homosexual persons into thinking they can lead chaste lives through self mastery?

God bless,

Robert

I believe the self-mastery spoken of in this passage, when read in the context of the other things I have pointed out, clearly implies the journey from experiencing same-sex attractions to experiencing opposite-sex attractions. You have mastered a temptation to individuals of the same gender when you no longer experience it.

The respect, compassion and sensitivity that we are to employ in our ministries to those with same-sex attractions cannot come at the expense of truth and the even clearer concept of what chastity is.

Until you can point out a definition of chastity better than the one I have pointed out from the Catechism, I will continue to believe that this is a state that cannot possibly be achieved by someone who obstinately persists in their own disorders.

 

[setter]

Other Eric, I note that you skirted answering my direct and specific questions, but instead chose to again platform your distortion agenda of connecting the dots in an erroneous interpretation. I will attempt to set you straight (again).

I tire of repeating myself with the same references to the Catechism in multiple threads which you have, apparently, continued to ignore. The common answer to my argument is to say that as long as the individual in question is being “chaste” that he or she is bearing their cross as Christ intends. Such people have no understanding of what chastity is if they can so crudely equate it with sexual suppression. This is what the Church says that chastity is:

2337 Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. (1)

This seems to be your stuck point: Just because in a predominant sexual attraction that is disordered, this disordered sexual desire cannot become a “valid integration” and take on flesh in a “personal and truly human” dimension, does not mean, as your falsely conclude, that chastity is not possible. It simply means that chastity for the person with a predominant homosexual attraction necessarily “includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery which is a training in human freedom” from “his passions and finds peace” (CCC 2339). As has been pointed out, your conjecture is at direct odds with what the Church teaches: “Homosexual persons are called to chastity. by the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, …” (CCC 2359)

Moreover, the Church recognizes that the sexuality is called into use even in our casual relationships. It forms the very basis for the way that we, as humans, relate to each other. Again (both here and earlier in this thread), from the Catechism:

2332 Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others

.(2)

Emphasis mine. Sexuality, therefore governs not only genital expression, but the very “aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others.” **This means that the sexuality is brought into use even in the platonic relationships that men and women have. **For one with opposite-sex attractions, this is a valid expression of the sexuality. In one with same-sex attractions, it is a sinful expression of a disordered sexuality whose only possible expression is one of evil.
(continued below . . .)

The Church in calling each and every person to chastity, which is the inner freedom to not be driven by their passions, and for a person afflicted with a predominant homosexual attraction, this simply means not give in to lustful thoughts or genital expression to their [disordered] sexual desire.

The virtue of self-mastery for the homosexual person at times entails “the support of disinterested persons” (CCC 2359), which your above conslusions would strictly prohibit as an instrinsic “sinful expression”. Again, your all or nothing distorted conclusions directly contradict clear Church instruction. The logical conclusion of your “instruction” would consign those persons with a homosexual attraction to a life of solitary confinement for the welfare of their own and others soul, until such a person is certified re-oriented to heterosexual attraction.

 

[setter]

That one with same-sex attractions can somehow completely separate him or herself from the sexual faculty is an example of ancient heresy.

You appear to struggle with the basic concept of separating the intrinsic worth of the person from the disordered desire. A disordered desire does not make a person evil or unable to reach holiness and sanctity in Jesus Christ …Jesus died on the Cross while we were yet sinners to make available sanctifying grace, i.e., grace that sanctifies.

So, what we have here is a condition of the sexuality that must never be expressed under pain of mortal sin. It need not necessarily be an act of genital stimulation to defy the natural law, either. Indeed, as quoted above,

Your point?

Since chastity is impossible, by definition, for the person who experiences same-sex attractions, in order to follow the universal call to chastity, the disorder must be healed.

The underlying premise of your distortion agenda that opposes Church teaching …unless you can cite Church documentation that supports this claim of yours.

I now turn this part of the conversation over to you. Can you provide any citation, reference or documentation that would demonstrate that those with same-sex attractions are called to a different standard of chastity that the rest of us? Perhaps you can finally provide me with the alternative definition of chastity that would cover both those with properly ordered sexualities and the deviant in order to maintain the universal nature of the moral law.

See my previous post citations.

Can you point out to me any sort of psychological study or orthodox treatise that points to the success of a man or a woman completely divorcing their sexuality from themselves and yet retaining the ability to interact in social setting? Perhaps you have been able to incorporate one or both of those ancient heresies, manicheism or albigensianism, into the Faith in order to accommodate those with deviant tastes. Please provide any reference to an orthodox syllogism which manages this.

This is part of your introduced construct.

 

[Other_Eric]

Other Eric, I note that you skirted answering my direct and specific questions, but instead chose to again platform your distortion agenda of connecting the dots in an erroneous interpretation. I will attempt to set you straight (again).

This seems to be your stuck point: Just because in a predominant sexual attraction that is disordered, this disordered sexual desire cannot become a “valid integration” and take on flesh in a “personal and truly human” dimension, does not mean, as your falsely conclude, that chastity is not possible. It simply means that chastity for the person with a predominant homosexual attraction necessarily “includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery which is a training in human freedom” from “his passions and finds peace” (CCC 2339). As has been pointed out, your conjecture is at direct odds with what the Church teaches: “Homosexual persons are called to chastity. by the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, …” (CCC 2359)

The Church in calling each and every person to chastity, which is the inner freedom to not be driven by their passions, and for a person afflicted with a predominant homosexual attraction, this simply means not give in to lustful thoughts or genital expression to their [disordered] sexual desire.

The virtue of self-mastery for the homosexual person at times entails “the support of disinterested persons” (CCC 2359), which your above conslusions would strictly prohibit as an instrinsic “sinful expression”. Again, your all or nothing distorted conclusions directly contradict clear Church instruction. The logical conclusion of your “instruction” would consign those persons with a homosexual attraction to a life of solitary confinement for the welfare of their own and others soul, until such a person is certified re-oriented to heterosexual attraction.

When a person is free of his passions he no longer experiences them. The rest is merely pro-homosexual proof-texting. There is a clear definition that I have provided and I have gone to pains on numerous occasions in these forums to keep people from watering it down in order to accommodate a disordered and evil inclination out of a sense of misplaced sympathy. I am looking for some type of quote that clearly demonstrates that the virtue of chastity is necessarily different from the one that the rest of us are obliged to follow.

You have provided not one reason or citation to support your rather extraordinary claim that those with same-sex attraction can have any sort of personal self-mastery in the face of same-sex attraction. Nicolosi, Moberly, Soccarides, Cameron and others have amassed a wealth of research that clearly demonstrates they cannot. For these authors, it is what drives their urgency in healing people such as these.

In addition, I fail to see that a life of solitude is at odds with life in Christ. Such a life made saints out of many a hermit. Nor does this solitude preclude the support of disinterested persons since this function can be carried out more than adequately through devotional prayer.

So, I will ask a second time: Can you provide any type of citation to an orthodox source which ratifies your impoverished conception of chastity?

 

[rlg94086]

You have provided not one reason or citation to support your rather extraordinary claim that those with same-sex attraction can have any sort of personal self-mastery in the face of same-sex attraction. Nicolosi, Moberly, Soccarides, Cameron and others have amassed a wealth of research that clearly demonstrates they cannot. For these authors, it is what drives their urgency in healing people such as these.

Again, the Church through the Catechism calls those with same-sex attraction to chastity through self-mastery. If the Church requires a homosexual person to change their inclination first, then it should be easy for you to cite exactly where that is stated by the Holy See…in the Catechism? An encyclical? Something?

Your misinterpretation of chastity and sexuality doesn’t suffice.

 

[Catholig]

I’m not sure that the LA diocese is upholding the church teachings. I did a search for “homosexual chastity” on their search thing, and I came up with a few results, but the only one that mentioned them together was the site concerning ordination to the priesthood in which case you’d have to be chaste anyway.

Catholig

 

[Other_Eric]

Again, the Church through the Catechism calls those with same-sex attraction to chastity through self-mastery. If the Church requires a homosexual person to change their inclination first, then it should be easy for you to cite exactly where that is stated by the Holy See…in the Catechism? An encyclical? Something?

Your misinterpretation of chastity and sexuality doesn’t suffice.

The Church requires that those with same-sex attractions be chaste. This should be the end of any ministry to those persons. If you think I have misinterpereted sexuality and that it is poswsible to live free from this faculty, please provide a reference. I would also like to know where it is you find your new, improved definition of chastity. In the Catechism? An encyclical? Something?

 

[setter]

When a person is free of his passions he no longer experiences them. The rest is merely pro-homosexual proof-texting. There is a clear definition that I have provided and I have gone to pains on numerous occasions in these forums to keep people from watering it down in order to accommodate a disordered and evil inclination out of a sense of misplaced sympathy. I am looking for some type of quote that clearly demonstrates that the virtue of chastity is necessarily different from the one that the rest of us are obliged to follow.

You have provided not one reason or citation to support your rather extraordinary claim that those with same-sex attraction can have any sort of personal self-mastery in the face of same-sex attraction. Nicolosi, Moberly, Soccarides, Cameron and others have amassed a wealth of research that clearly demonstrates they cannot. For these authors, it is what drives their urgency in healing people such as these.

Correction: A person is free (has freedom over) of his passions when he is not longer the slave to his passions and temptations. To purport that one must be rid of said passions in order to be free of said passions is simply incorrect.

Self-mastery = mastery over one’s passions. Pretty simple. Nothing extraordinary about this conceptual reality put forth by the Church. St.Paul and the other new testament writers spoke extensively of overcoming the temptations and tendency of the flesh as virtue in mastering one’s passions.

In addition, I fail to see that a life of solitude is at odds with life in Christ. Such a life made saints out of many a hermit. Nor does this solitude preclude the support of disinterested persons since this function can be carried out more than adequately through devotional prayer.

We know that you would isolate and quarantine every person with SSA as your version of “compassion”.

So, I will ask a second time: Can you provide any type of citation to an orthodox source which ratifies your impoverished conception of chastity?

I will indulge you further:
To indulge your obstinancy further:

THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR THE FAMILY

THE TRUTH AND MEANING
OF HUMAN SEXUALITY

1. “Chastity includes an *apprenticeship in self-mastery *which is a training in human freedom. The alternative is clear: either man governs his passions and finds peace, or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy”. Every person knows, by experience, that chastity requires rejecting certain thoughts, words and sinful actions, as Saint Paul was careful to clarify and point out (cf. Romans 1:18; 6: 12-14; 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11; 2 Corinthians 7: 1; Galatians 5: 16-23; Ephesians 4: 17-24; 5: 3-13; Colossians 3: 5-8; 1 Thessalonians 4: 1-18; 1 Timothy 1: 8-11; 4: 12). To achieve this requires ability and an *attitude of self-mastery *which are signs of inner freedom, of responsibility towards oneself and others. At the same time, these signs bear witness to a faithful conscience. Such self-mastery involves both avoiding occasions which might provoke or encourage sin as well as knowing how to overcome one’s own natural instinctive impulses.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_08121995_human-sexuality_en.html

 

[rlg94086]

I guess we are at an impasse…you haven’t answered why the Church calls homosexual persons to chastity through self-mastery. I don’t take scholars as the final word. I take the Catechism. I understand self-mastery to be the way to a chaste life - no homosexual sex, no masterbation, no adultery.

Even lust itself is described by the Catechism as a “disordered desire” and an offense to chastity. Must a heterosexual person remove this desire first and then practice self-mastery? Of course not.

The disordered desire a person has for the opposite sex is no different then the disordered desire for the same sex, when it comes to chastity. Both need to be mastered in order to live a chaste life. The Catechism is clear on that.

The Church requires that those with same-sex attractions be chaste. This should be the end of any ministry to those persons. If you think I have misinterpereted sexuality and that it is poswsible to live free from this faculty, please provide a reference. I would also like to know where it is you find your new, improved definition of chastity. In the Catechism? An encyclical? Something?

 

[rlg94086]

From John Paul II’s
LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

To celebrate the Paschal Mystery, it is necessary to let that Mystery become imprinted in the fabric of daily life. To refuse to sacrifice one’s own will in obedience to the will of the Lord is effectively to prevent salvation. Just as the Cross was central to the expression of God’s redemptive love for us in Jesus, so the conformity of the self-denial of homosexual men and women with the sacrifice of the Lord will constitute for them a source of self-giving which will save them from a way of life which constantly threatens to destroy them.

Christians who are homosexual are called, as all of us are, to a chaste life. As they dedicate their lives to understanding the nature of God’s personal call to them, they will be able to celebrate the Sacrament of Penance more faithfully and receive the Lord’s grace so freely offered there in order to convert their lives more fully to his Way.

Note, the Holy Father did not say they have to have their disorder removed, just that they live a chaste life through self-denial and joining their sufferings to the Lord’s Cross.

In regards to the LA Archdiocese’ website:

1. With this in mind, this Congregation wishes to ask the Bishops to be especially cautious of any programmes which may seek to pressure the Church to change her teaching, even while claiming not to do so. A careful examination of their public statements and the activities they promote reveals a studied ambiguity by which they attempt to mislead the pastors and the faithful. For example, they may present the teaching of the Magisterium, but only as if it were an optional source for the formation of one’s conscience. Its specific authority is not recognized. Some of these groups will use the word “Catholic” to describe either the organization or its intended members, yet they do not defend and promote the teaching of the Magisterium; indeed, they even openly attack it. While their members may claim a desire to conform their lives to the teaching of Jesus, in fact they abandon the teaching of his Church. This contradictory action should not have the support of the Bishops in any way.
2. We encourage the Bishops, then, to provide pastoral care in full accord with the teaching of the Church for homosexual persons of their dioceses. No authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral. A truly pastoral approach will appreciate the need for homosexual persons to avoid the near occasions of sin.

I think we can conclude that the website is ambiguous. And, including the “rainbow fish” furthers that ambiguity.