"'As far as the Church is concerned, sex can only be done within the context of marriage, and marriage, as we know, is between a man and a woman,' he said.
"Medroso said the prohibition on pre-marital sex on heterosexuals was the same prohibition it imposed on gays.
"'Marriage and sex, as the Church views it, is solely for reproduction. That's the nature of marriage, opening up a couple to producing children. We cannot have that in a man to man or a woman to woman relationship, therefore, sex between persons of the same sex becomes unnatural and offends the Church,' the bishop explained."
[For the full article, see here.]
Now, let me get this (pardon the expression) straight:
1. The Bishop says that "The Church had learned to accept homosexuality as part of reality." Since homosexuality has been around for thousands of years, the RC Church now sees homosexuality as part of reality. And I thought that taking over 350 years to apologize for the Galileo fiasco was a long time!
2. "Sex can only be done within the context of marriage, and marriage, as we know, is between a man and a woman." If sex can only be done within the context of marriage, why fight same-sex marriage, as to do so is encouraging fornication that the RC Church so vehemently decries? By being in the vanguard of the assault on same-sex marriage and the dignity and the many rights that would accrue to same-sex married couples and their children, the RC Church is helping to create the very sin it decries. The phrase, "as we know," is interesting, as it is by no means a given that marriage must be consigned to heterosexual couples. There is absolutely no prohibition against same-sex marriage in the Bible! What "religious" prohibitions occur regarding same-sex marriage are due to the prejudices and the doctrines that flow from those prejudices in the RC Church, and in most other denominations within the institutional Church.
3. "The prohibition on pre-marital sex on heterosexuals was the same prohibition it imposed on gays." Not exactly! Heterosexuals can get married but, as of this date, Gay people are not allowed to ever get married, so the expression of sexual intimacy is denied the former only temporarily, but denied to the latter in perpetuity. That's a big difference! Moreover, although I don't want to sound like Bill Clinton, we have to define what "sex" is. I doubt there is any heterosexual couple contemplating marriage that hasn't engaged in one or more behaviors that would constitute "sex" by any reasonable definition of the term.
4. "Marriage and sex, as the Church views it, is solely for reproduction. That's the nature of marriage, opening up a couple to producing children." That is clearly not true! If it is true, the RC Church should make it crystal clear that any heterosexual couple contemplating marriage must be able to prove that it could conceive and give birth to children or else not allow that couple to get married. No sexually and emotionally healthy person can believe that marriage and sex are solely for reproductive purposes! People who get married also want companionship, love, sexual and emotional intimacy, friendship. But why would we expect a RC Bishop, or any other person who is presumably celibate and unmarried, to understand this fact? And why are we taking any utterances concerning love, sex, and marriage seriously when it comes from a person who has taken a vow of celibacy? The gullible people who take such assertions, dogmas, and doctrines seriously, especially when they come from unmarried celibate men, should be ashamed of themselves!
5. Since, just like heterosexual couples who can't have, or choose not to have, children, Gay couples can't biologically have children, save through in vitro fertilization and/or through adoption. However, the bishop concludes his and the RC Church's irrational "logic" in this area of which they know absolutely nothing by saying, "We cannot have that [reproduction] in a man to man or a woman to woman relationship, therefore, sex between persons of the same sex becomes unnatural and offends the Church."
No Bishop! It is you and the denomination that you represent in this matter of same-sex love who are "unnatural" and who offend the Church of Jesus Christ!
It is statements like these, prejudices like these, irrational statements like these, that lead to shame, self-loathing, suicides, assaults, and murders of God's gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender children!
You speak for the Roman Catholic Church; you speak for yourself; you speak for other clergy and their followers who think as you do about same-sex love, but you certainly don't speak for our God of grace, peace, and love; you certainly don't speak for the Church of Jesus Christ comprised of all those who trust in the grace of God which is far wider and deeper than is yours and the institution that you so assiduously represent!
Hatred and hate-mongering have no fellowship with Christianity or with God, regardless of how sanctimonious the pronouncements! And it's high time that that fact was proclaimed loudly and clearly; far more loudly and clearly than the irrational utterances of any Bishop or other clergy and/or their followers in the RC Church, or in any other denomination, who preach hatred and exclusion, seeking to prevent any of God's children from having full and equal civil and sacramental rights!