Honestly, when I read posts like the one from GJC, I sometimes wonder which is worse,

1) being excessively "welcoming" to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs

or

2) the bitter hateful self-righteous contempt for ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs exhibited by many Traditional Catholics (constant derogatory terms such as "fag" being thrown around)

We must have compassion upon those who have been enslaved by the inclination and we must pray for them.  There but for the grace of God go all of us as well.  Were it not for the grace of God we too could easily be sodomites.  So stop the self-righteous chest-beating.

And, with regard to the term sodomite, there is INDEED a real distinction between those who practice sins against nature (sodomy) and those who have a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ orientation only and are fighting it, a HUGE distinction.

So give it a rest already.  Just thank God that you are not afflicted with this vice and pray with compassion for those who are.

Where the recent "Relatio" crosses the line is in seeing anything inherently positive in the orientation itself.

Now, as for ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs themselves, if they are willing to lead a completely chaste lifestyle in complete continence with regular, if not frequent, confession, then, yes, they should be allowed to receive the Holy Eucharist, and, indeed, serve the One True Church, the Catholic Church, in a capacity as laypeople, but never in the capacity of Holy Orders.

That should go without saying.

Agreed on all points.  Even if someone does have the inclinations against nature, it should be kept private.

Hatred for sin is nothing but an expression of love for the good.  When hatred ceases to be an act of love, it's a disorder.  I hate sin precisely because I love the sinner afflicted by it and the harm it does to his soul, and I pray that the sinner be delivered from his sin.

Not only should we stop using the word "gαy," we should stop using the word "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ" and reject the modernist lie that habitual sodomy constitutes some kind of "orientation" that defines the person in some deep, ontological way.

A Catholic of good will who is tempted to sodomy but does not act on it would not define himself as a "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ" and would certainly not identify himself publicly as one. The knowledge of his inclination to that particular sin would not go anywhere outside of the confessional. So the whole issue of "charity for ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs" is in fact a non-issue. If you're a good willed Catholic deserving of my charity, you will show some common sense and discretion and not advertise the fact that you have an inclination to the Sin against Nature.

Consider for a moment how absurd it would be if we were discussing "compassion" and "charity" for pederasts or bestialists or compulsive masturbators. "Well of course, I don't believe Holy Communion should be given to pederasts, but we should treat them with compassion and charity." No we bloody well should not! If the person in question is so intransigently attached to his perverse disorder that he's willing to announce himself to all and sundry as a "pederast," then he damn well ought to be shunned and treated as a pariah, lest our false compassion for him become a genuine offense against charity for the sinner himself and those who will be scandalized by our tacit validation of his "lifestyle." So it would be with pederasts, so let it be with sodomites.

And a "fαɢɢօt" is a bundle of sticks used for kindling. This word grew to be applied to sodomites because that's just exaclty what a practitioner of sodomy is - kindling for hellfire. That epithet came into being in generations of old that were much less inimical to natural law than our own perverse generation, so I would not be so quick to throw away such a good, traditional word. We are, after all, Traditional Catholics, aren't we?

A good quote from an unchawitable pharisee Catholic Saint:

'Whenever you hear sodomy mentioned, each and every one of you spit on the ground and clean your mouth out as well. If they don't want to change their ways by any other means, maybe they will change when they're made fools of. Spit hard! Maybe the water of your spit will extinguish their fire.'

St. Bernardine of Siena

You guys just keep telling yourselves that you're motivated by charity.

"Well of course, I don't believe Holy Communion should be given to pederasts, but we should treat them with compassion and charity." No we bloody well should not!

You fail to define "treat".  In some cases, harsh TREATMENT can in fact be charity.  Nevertheless, even the most militant ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ was created by God; God loves him and died for him and deeply desires his conversion.  But the harsh treatment, if deemed necessary from CHARITY, must still be accompanied by an ATTITUDE of love and compassion.  That's clearly not where you people are coming from.

The word "gαy" to describe a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ is pandering to their agenda. ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ is the neutral word to describe them. Sodomy/sodomite would be confusing to the uninformed.

ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ is not neutral.  We don't call pedophiles pedosɛҳuąƖs do we?  The purpose of coining the phrase Homo-sɛҳuąƖ was to make people believe that there was legitimacy to the homo perversion, like it was just different form of sɛҳuąƖity.  sɛҳuąƖity is defined by how a creature reproduces; humans are all heterosɛҳuąƖ, amoebas are asɛҳuąƖ.  Calling a human a homo-sɛҳuąƖ implies they reproduce with the same sex, which is false.  People need to stop using the language of those with an evil agenda.  I prefer homophiles as a term to call them. Adding "phile" at the end really drives home what they really are.