“Michaelangelo never said he was a homosexual and no one ever “outed” him. Big difference.”
Nope. He had gifts and talents no matter what his sexual orientation. That’s the point. The document seems to be saying that homosexuals have a disorder, but that doesn’t mean they do not have worth in regard to talents and gifts.
“No one knew his proclivities.”
No one knew? So the women or men he was involved with didn’t know? You are making no sense whatsoever. His confessor didn’t know? Come on. The lengths that some people go to to avoid obvious logic is shocking to me. If Michaelangelo was homosexual he still had talents and gifts. If he was heterosexual, he still had talents and gifts. He was human.
“Today’s homo’s make themselves very known vocally, in the Church.”
Actually, no. There are plenty of people who will tell you that some big urban dioceses may have dozens of homosexual priests yet those priests by and large do not “make themselves very known vocally, in the Church.”
“So disapproval of their sexual behavior becomes fodder for the libs and the progressives in the Catholic Church. It’s all out there in the open now.”
No, it isn’t. I wish it was so the obvious problem could be uprooted and homosexuals could be ousted from the priesthood, but that isn’t the case.
Are you living in LaLaLand? Geez. Are you gay too and feel the need to go to ridiculous lengths to justify what the progressive priests in this Synod are attempting to do? What’s wrong with you.
“No one knew? So the women or men he was involved with didn’t know? You are making no sense whatsoever. His confessor didn’t know? Come on. The lengths that some people go to to avoid obvious logic is shocking to me.”
No one even knows if Michaelangelo was gay and you’re sitting there saying his lovers and confessors would know when you don’t even know if he had any. You are making stuff up out of whole cloth. Logic? You don’t have any.