Andrew Sullivan would reject ideas and opinion expressed by Cardinal Josef Ratzinger citing the examples of the Bible and Hebrews Scriptures. Homosexuality is a sin because it is unnatural for a person to have sexual relations with the same sex. This issue is stated in Leviticus: “you shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (Sullivan 188). At the level of policy, Sullivan argues that the Church oppose homosexuality, which by its very nature is at odds with the norm of the procreative family, a norm which is major contribution to the civilization of humanity. The essay is an effort to make explicit this "civilizing" role of heterosexual marriage, a role recognized, emphasized, and sanctified by biblical religion. In contrast to Andrew Sullivan, Cardinal Josef Ratzinger states that homosexuality cannot be regarded as a sin because “human beings, therefore, are nothing less than the work of God himself; and in the complementarity of the sexes they are called to reflect the inner unity of the Creator” (Ratzinger). The church should express Christ's love and compassion toward homosexual persons, but should also uphold the vision for sexuality and marriage.
Thus, Andrew Sullivan would agree with some ideas expressed by Cardinal Josef Ratzinger recognizing the difference between homosexual acts and homosexual orientation. “Persons with a homosexual orientation are not to be condemned or prosecuted, but treated with dignity, respect and compassion” (Sullivan 190). The homosexual movement is interpreted by the colloquium as part of a larger sexual agenda rooted in a destructive lack of discipline and restraint. ...Show more