I often wonder whether or not Benedict is a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ. Hopefully people don't pretend to be shocked, because I'm sure they've also thought about it.
The homoerotic acrobats were one thing, but he also, in his books, often refers to a very arcane French-American writer named Julien Green who was an open ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ. Of course, I know Julien Green, and I'm not ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, from my past as a bookworm, but this arcane gαy author is a truly bizarre person for a Cardinal to repeatedly cite in books about "faith."
There are other indications about Ratzinger. He appears to be one of those gnostic aesthetes of the kind that fawn over Brideshead Revisited. Something I've observed about ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, from my limited experience, is that they often believe their filthy proclivities give them some kind of secret, special knowledge. There is almost something inherently GNOSTIC about ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity itself, as you might expect, since such tastes are literally unfathomable to heterosɛҳuąƖ men. Perhaps it is so traumatic to the mind to have participated in these foul acts that gαys, like schizophrenics, attempt to escape into an imaginary personality. At any rate, like many other groups who don't want the truth, they do tend to construct an elaborate but ungodly ethos to justify their actions.
I remember George Michael was once photographed having an assignation with an old man. He said to the photographer, "Are you gαy? No? Then you don't know anything about it!" In other words, you have to be one of the initiated, one of the elite, to understand why they act the way they do. Being gαy doesn't mean they're sick, it means they are exquisite, sensitive, unique flowers. Fallen angels, at times, but aspiring towards the empyrean climes... All you have to do to understand what I'm talking about is take a look at someone like Oscar Wilde, who carried himself as if he was the pinnacle of civilization while all those who would impede his sodomite proclivities were barbaric fiends. His life is treated by gαys as if he were Jesus, as if he suffered for humanity.
This is why gαys often act bashful and sensitive and artistic. It's like some kind of mask for their gross activity, a way to make it seem poetic instead of just deranged and diseased. They essentially construct an entire philosophy, an ethics and an aesthetics around what is in reality a freakish and base desire. This dichotomy surely accounts for their bad tempers, their ultra-sensitivity, as you will be familiar with if you have ever known a gαy. They almost all have hair-trigger tempers and are violently unstable. I knew one gαy guy, an actor, when I was in junior high, and I remember him storming angrily out of the room when he showed me one of his performances and I didn't say anything about how great he was within one or two minutes of watching it. Like Jєωs, they put on an air of meekness and sweetness, but underneath there is often a self-loathing that is infinite, a self-loathing that could easily turn into hate for others.
Something that is VERY noticeable about the writings of Ratzinger is that this man is a full-blown gnostic, in a cult of one, speaking only to himself, as if he has some kind of private wisdom. He will allow you to hear it, to be privy to it, but he will not give you the key to unlock it. He doesn't even act as if he wants to be understood. Like all gnostics, he appears to want to be seen as having an impenetrably deep mind, and to this effect he cloaks himself in nonsensical ambiguities. In reality he sounds like an incompetent schoolboy who just read his first ten pages of Heidegger and decides to try to blend it with his rudimentary Christian faith. But his obscure and "aesthetic" mind, in tandem with certain other events of his pontificate, sure does lead one to wonder.