Membership in the “Hitler Youth” was not optional for German boys, so it is really unfair to criticize the pope for that. Just like it would be unfair to criticize a German drafted into the Nazi Army for serving in the war.

In other words: their actions resemble the tantrum a 3 year old throws when (s)he is told it is time to go to be but is having too much fun. He knows he will end up in bed, but throws the tantrum as a last ditch effort to either milk more fun out of you, or at least ruin your evening.

It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.

But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.” (Bolding mine)

But I’m pleased to note the Church these days seems to emphasise the former paragraph’s sentiment rather than Ratzinger’s unforgivable qualifier in the following paragraph. Yet Ratzinger’s words remain as an official document on the Church’s position, an apologia for violence against the LGBT community.

Sounds just like Republican math they’re doing to make themselves feel better.

While the real world just goes right on being real.

Well, let's see. Surely you did google the catholic catechism to make sure you knew what it says before coming here to make statements likle this. So lets take a look, shall we?

The catholic Catechism's homosexuality chapter seems to be rather short, considering how much they obsess over us, Here is is, with some commentary dispersed:

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 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.

Now, we can completely see the BS here, it smells like itm it looks like it and I bet it tastes like it. We are able to discenn that, with all the money the Catholic Church has, surely they could have done their own study on human psycology; or at least taken the ones that have been done by secular sources seriously. Since they have not, I think it is safe to say that this is BS that a lot of catholics do not buy here in the USA and it seems to be happening increasingly in other parts of the word. So, like Harvey milk would say "Come out, come out wherever you are." This is the only way to make this parragraph 100% obsolete, irrelevant and more importantly, deleted.

Now, while we are going to discount 99.99% of what is says here, I think that there is one section in here that can be used and is very helpful: It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Why do I say that? Because we live in a world where we hear more and more that Homosexuals do not exist.

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.

Now, this is the main meal of this discussion, because here is the section I was refering to. Let's go ahead and take out and highlight it: They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. Now, I think that we can all agree that the rest, like the parragraph before is mostly BS. Until the Catholic Church either conducts their own scientifically relevalt study and present it for review, the weight of the many other studies about homosexuality is greater and must be (and is by many thinking Catholics) taken seriously.

But the fact still remains that in the middle of all the BS, there it is, the one part of the Catechism that calls for the treatment of gay people with dignity and respect. I would dare say that most thinking Catholics (and of those there seems to be a LOT here in the USA) have been able to recognize that this is a part of the catechism that should be followed. Is the upper tear of the church doing it? I think the answer we all know it. I think pointing out the many ways the church and many of its representatives in all spheres of the organization are ignoring this in favor of the other parts that point out the "boogie man" aspects of gay people is unnecessary.

When did the change happen? To be honest I do not remember it. Fact still remains that it is there, and it is already being put into practice and there are plenty of Catholics who are pushing back and demanding that the church practice what they teach.

2359 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.

And this is laughable bejond belief. The moment your priests can live up to this, call us. I think we can all agree with it.

My point was never that the Catholic church is 100% behind us. My point was that steps were taken and they are there. Is the Catholic church living up to their own standards? Most certainly not. But there was a time when this little phrase was not there. This change happened under JP II and he obviously failed to live up to it himself, but we can hardly say he was the only one who said one thing and did something completely different, right?