Your editorial opposition to the Catholic official teaching that homosexuality is an unnatural orientation, is based, not on any ethical insight, but on an ideological pretence that all human relationships are of the same quality and value. This arises from confusing the relationship of equality of all humans, unconditionally as human beings before God, with relationships of inequality among humans conditionally on their being ready and qualified to enter into them. Would you, for instance, regard paedophile relationships as fit for marriage? If so, you would be at least consistent, but still mixed up when you both distinguish the physical consummation of sexual intimacy as merely a matter for ecclesiastical prurience, from committed, loving and enduring personal relationships, and yet at the same time regard the two as no different. You support what you say is the majority identifying such profoundly spiritual relationships, whose quality makes them their own reward independently of public recognition, let alone marriage, so closely with critically psychosomatic procreative sexual intimacy, which does depend on public support, as to completely confuse them as well as their respective need for marriage. A vox populi that by making these mistakes, is at odds with the constant tradition of the Catholic Church that does not, no more contributes to the sensus fidelium than did the Jerusalem mob who called for Jesus Christ’s death.