Queering the Church towards a reality based theology

I agree with both Terence and justacorrection; I can do so because both stances are just interpretations of what an action means. Both have an equal chance of being right, because none of us knows for sure what the pope is thinking or has planned. He may honestly be against same sex marriage. However I must caution justacorrection not to take everything seen on the surface as all there is. The Church already does not have a very good reputation for transparency. Benedict may secretly be in-favor of same sex marriage (or may have been recently converted to tolerance) yet is bound by the dictates of his office and is waiting for certain things to change first. I have to say that I support Terence’s comment “I suspect that Benedict knows it too, and is very carefully avoiding saying anything, to prepare the way for the inevitable change in doctrine that will come.” This reminds me of the signers of the American Constitution’s decision to avoid the issue of slavery: 
     Many wonder how the american founders could have written a document proclaiming that all men are created free and equal yet still allow slavery. The answer was practicality: Tackle one thing at a time. Near the end of the convention the thorny issue was discussed on practicality grounds; How would slaves be counted for congressional seats? But “practicality grounds” was really just a ploy to force the white elephant in the room into direct discussion.
     Many, many of the delegates were in favor of abolishing slavery in the original constitution. A prominent delegate stood up and very emotionally advocated that slavery be abolished in the first draft. Someone quickly called him out as a hypocrite, because he personally owned hundreds of slaves. The delegate responded, “Yes, I do; and so I know first hand, perhaps better than any of you, the corruption that slavery brings to both the slave and the master. It is a terrible institution and must be done away with.” 
     However, as everyone knows, the convention did not abolish slavery with the original constitution. Why? It was because it was not the proper time. The country was in a state of collapse. A new, strong, balanced government was needed to fix the financial, economic, and political crisis immediately; or else the newly united states would fail and be easy prey for England to sweep back into its control. The delegates hotly debated the slavery issue, but in the end they recognized that it would be detrimental to force the issue at that time. They understood that the constitution would not be ratified by the required number of states if they included the abolition of slavery, and that there was not enough time for a second convention and ratification campaign before the country imploded. They decided to stabilize the country first, which would then provide solid ground from which to launch an assault on slavery. One thing at a time. 
     Thomas Jefferson famously hated slavery yet refused to free his own slaves or even support abolition until the time was right, until society was ready for it, until all slaves were free so that if he freed his they would not be reenslaved by someone else. He strongly believed that no issue should be forced, no matter how evil it is, before the social structure/society is ready for it; otherwise it will tear the country apart, and not only will you have failed to truly correct the evil, you would have created more evils with the chaotic situation that follows. His words were proven during the French Revolution, where the zeal of the reformers caused them to enact freedoms and reforms that the populace was not conditioned for, and the result was the complete shredding of the fabric of french social structure (even down to the family unit) and the only way to reinstitute order was institute the first modern Terror with its infamous guillotine. The revolution had good intentions to correct the evils of the day, but by forcing issues before their time they actually created a worse situation than they started with.
     Sometimes in political positions you have to tolerate and even verbally support things that you do not really believe in so that you can attain your true long term goals more effectively in the future. Patients is a virtue. Benedict could be advocating orthodoxy to maintain respect with conservative catholics, while secretly waiting for them to become more used to same sex marriage through the exposure they will inevitably receive in their secular cultures; the, when their aversion has been whittled down enough, he can use the trust and respect he has earned with them over the years to help them to accept such a drastic change in church doctrine. 
    Then again, he may honestly believe in his heart that same sex marriage is wrong. However, it is clear that, despite the poll numbers of catholics in the US and a few other western countries in support of SSmarriage, there is still a massive portion of the church throughout the world that is very against it. Whether Benedict is really for or against SSmarriage is really irrelevant though, because no pope who truly cares about the church (or leader who cares about his country) would risk the massive schism and chaos that would be virtually guaranteed to happen if the church suddenly accepted same sex marriage immediately. Forcing it now would tear the church apart, so the only real option is A. Silence or B. Regurgitation of orthodoxy (both of which the pope seems to be doing) until a more opportune time. Therefore, it is my belief that both interpretations are equally possible, yet I more strongly support Terence’s interpretation; as I know for a fact that many bishops and priests are playing this stupid but necessary political game in hopes that they can help change the church when the time is right. I also caution all reformers to heed the words of jefferson and the lessons of history and expect (advocate even) that these changes will not and cannot be fast tracked; be mature, see the larger picture (of which you are just a small pixel within), and know ahead of time that these things will probably take a lot longer than most would care to wait to fully come about.