I’m not sure I agree, either.
We do not know, actually, what this ridiculous term “a more pastoral approach” even means today, in terms of the impact on priests. The ruminating and naval gazing going, in Rome, on this pastoral approach business is coming from a tiny minority and it appears unnecessary on its face, since the duty of a priest IS and always has been definitively pastoral.
Priests are generally wonderful pastoral counselors on matters of faith and morals, and may enjoy the gift of counsel. Beyond his priestly duty to teach and to admonish, and to counsel on certain matters and up to a point, the priests generally can recommend a psychiatrist, or psychologist, or risk being sued for dabbling beyond his expertise with occasionally unstable individuals.
I would suggest when the priest’s “approach” is deemed “wrong”, it is likely because of just that— in above his head. It is rare indeed that a priest casts even a criticism, never mind an actual judgment on such a person.
Priests should not be shaped, manipulated, additionally obligated or expected to now be entirely charged to deal with a pathology, a mental/behavioral disorder.
IMHO, there is much that is urgent for Rome to contend with. This subject is not it. IMHO. Thx, Rita.
I think that much attention to counseling gays is indeed a response not to a pressing need on the part of the gays, but the futile desire to explain things to the hostile media.