Picking battles

Traditionalist Christopher Ferrara is upset that the Vatican didn't use the term "sodomy" in its document, Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons.

He goes on to criticize the document's content, asserting, "anyone who examines the document with a prudence borne of the bitter experience of the past forty years will find in it the almost invariable pattern of postconciliar pronouncements: affirmation of some truths combined with a significant yielding of ground to the Church’s enemies."

His conclusion begins with the following:

Yes, the CDF condemns the legalization of homosexual marriages and calls upon all Catholics to oppose any legislation in that regard. But the Vatican’s belated opposition to this moral absurdity is just another example of how for the past 40 years the human element of the Church, paralyzed by the viruses of “dialogue” and “religious liberty,” has ceased any effective opposition to the inexorable advance of the revolutionary status quo, while occasionally speaking out against the revolution’s worst excesses. In this case, the Vatican failed to oppose the deadly toleration of sodomy—both within and without the Church—and is now reduced to presenting “considerations” against the logical consequence of that negligent toleration: formal legal recognition of “homosexual unions.” The Vatican will not even identify the evil at the heart of the matter by its proper name: sodomy, the sin that cries to God for vengeance. The Vatican’s almost surreal intervention is far too little, offered far too late.

I don't really have much to say about all of this, other than that I completely disagree with Mr. Ferrara, but anyone who knows my theological views would already know that. Mr. Ferrara believes that using the term "sodomy" will be more effective in combating the drive for homosexual marriages than not doing so.

That doesn't make any sense to me.