From a more wide-ranging interview at America magazine, this sentiment echoes that of Archbishop Koch – Church discussion of homosexuality must continue.
The synod, in its final document, said very little about homosexuals or homosexuality.
That’s true, and I think it’s because a kind of logic emerged that this synod must be about the family, and I think the struggles, the upsets and the challenges that a person faces with the same-sex orientation don’t strictly fall within the parameters of the family, except in as much as they are a member of a family into which they were born. But I’m afraid that it didn’t get the attention that I would have hoped but I understand why.
I understand that some speeches and some group discussions suggested that there is need for a more mature discussion on this whole question.
Yes, that’s true. And I think it is quite difficult because, as was also pointed out, this is more than a pastoral issue, this has become a highly politicized issue and it’s difficult actually to respond purely to the pastoral situation without then getting used in what has become a kind of a very political issue. So it is difficult.
Source: America Magazine
I noticed that the Cardinal refers here to ‘same-sex orientation’ rather than the previously used ‘attraction’!
The synod conspicuously did not decide to change the language, as some had been suggesting, but in practice the language is changing, regardless.
But sometimes, the signals are confused: Peter Doyle, for instance, managed to refer to “LGBT” (progress) and “same-sex-attracion” (not progress) in the same breath.