> I think most rational people would see through that ...

Where is the inconsistency? A heterosexual man is called to chastity as well. If he acts against this by cheating on his spouse I don't think the CC would be 'condemning an intrinsic quality' he was made with.

The teachings of Jesus should piss everyone off in some way or another.

Jesus never preached against gay sex

"We must infer that Jesus never defecated or urinated, because it doesn't say so in the Bible."

Right, instead we should completely ignore the fact that jesus explicitly died to wipe the slate clean and free us from the old covenant and usher in a new hippy peace and love covenant that was explicitly about accepting those who traditionally were not accepted, and continue to use stupid old outdated and deprecated rules that were mostly jewish in origin to prevent our neighbors from living a free and happy life.

I'm not sure what Gospels you have read, but I'm pretty sure Christ told the adultress to go and sin no more. I'm also pretty sure that Christ commanded to love our neighbor and to keep the old commandments. I'm also pretty sure that he physically attacked usurers in the Temple.

The Bible says that Jesus did many things that, even if he actually existed, he certainly never did, so I think it's fair to say that Jesus the character from the Bible never defecated if it's not said anywhere that he did.

It's because it's so specific in its targetting of a vulnerable minority group.

If someone cheats on their spouse the problem is a betrayal of trust between two people. It's part of a complex web of obligations, urges, and everything else that happens in a relationship.

It's not nearly as simple as someone expressing their sexuality.

It's inconsistent in that it discriminates against a group of people with an undue burden that they can never have a loving, passionate, sexual relationship with adults they feel attraction towards. This is a bit like saying both the wealthy and the poor have equal access to homelessness, and therefore making homelessness a crime punishable with death applies fairly to all classes.

I think you are correct in emphasizing that the burden of the Church's teaching on chastity does not fall equally on all groups of people.

But it should be stressed that this is no way a consequence a specific teaching that targets people with same-sex attraction.

The root cause of the trouble is the fact that the Catholic Church has consistently taught something that is always counter-cultural, difficult, and even quite radical. Namely that the only proper place for sexual intimacy is within a life long bond between one man and one woman for the purpose of raising children.

Whatever the pseudo-logic and precedence, these views have a real effect on real people. The intent is surely secondary to the harm?

>But it should be stressed that this is no way a consequence a specific teaching that targets people with same-sex attraction.

The Catholic Church teaches that gay sex is an act of 'grave depravity' and that same-sex attraction is 'intrinsically disordered'. How is that not a specific teaching that targets 'people with same-sex attraction'?

http://www.catholic-catechism.com/ccc_2357.htm

Of course the Church has a well know teaching with regard to this activity. Just like the Church has a specific teaching about artificial contraception. So the Church obviously says specific things about specific things.

The point is that the identical moral reasoning process is being applied consistently to all people, namely, sexual activity is to be avoided outside of a marriage open to children. Gay people are not being targeted by some sort of religious moral carve-out.

The Catholic Church does not treat extramarital sex between a man and a woman who are infertile as morally equivalent to sex between two men. Nor does it treat the use of contraception as morally equivalent to gay sex, despite condemning both.

The Church specifically teaches that gay sex is wrong in a way that straight sex isn't, entirely independently of whether it occurs within or outside marriage.

In the case of the article we're commenting on, we have an example of the Church (or a closely associated organisation) specifically treating gay priests differently to straight priests, despite the fact that neither are permitted to have sex with anyone.

It's abundantly clear which group is being targeted here. It's not "people who are having sex with no possibility of having children", or "people who are having sex outside of marriage". It's gay people. And they're being targeted because the Catholic Church teaches very explicitly and specifically that gay sex is wrong.

Not really though.