Students from Liberty University pray in front of the U.S. Supreme Court during oral arguments in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization abortion case on Dec. 1, 2021. / Katie Yoder/CNA
Washington D.C., Dec 1, 2021 / 15:40 pm (CNA).
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments about the constitutionality of Mississippi’s 15-week state abortion ban Wednesday, a high-stakes test of the settledness of legalized abortion in a deeply unsettled nation still sharply divided over the right to life.
The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, is viewed by many Catholic leaders and pro-life groups as the best chance yet to overturn the court’s landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which has barred restrictive early-term abortion laws like Mississippi’s for the past 48 years.
Over that time, some 62 million abortions have taken place in the United States, statistics show, a grim toll the Catholic Church sees as both a grave evil and a catastrophic political failure.
Conversely, a decision that strikes down Mississippi’s 2018 law, called the Gestational Age Act, which prohibits abortions after the 15th week of gestation, would represent a devastating setback for the pro-life movement. For many years it has pinned its hopes of overturning Roe on the goal of securing a supermajority of conservative justices on the nation’s highest court, as is the case now.
With thousands of people keeping a vocal but peaceful vigil outside the Supreme Court on a bright, brisk morning in Washington, D.C., the nine justices took up the intensely anticipated case in a proceeding that lasted nearly two hours.
Among the demonstrators were four women shown in a viral video posted online swallowing pills behind a large sign that reads, “WE ARE TAKING ABORTION PILLS FOREVER,” a reference to the prescription drugs mifepristone and misoprostol that when used in combination will induce a miscarriage.
Mississippi is asking the court to do more than simply uphold the state’s abortion law; it wants the court to overturn both Roe and a later ruling that affirmed it nearly 20 years later, the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Both Roe and Casey “have no basis in the Constitution,” Scott G. Stewart, the state’s solicitor general, said in his opening argument.
“They have no home in our history or traditions. They’ve damaged the democratic process. They poison the law. They’ve choked off compromise for 50 years,” he said.
In Roe, the court ruled that states could not ban abortion before viability, which the court determined to be 24 to 28 weeks into pregnancy. Casey, viewed as the “Dobbs” of its day, found that while states could regulate pre-viability abortions, they could not enforce an “undue burden.” The Casey court defined that term to mean “a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.”
Stewart said the two cases have “kept this court at the center of a political battle that it can never resolve.”
“Nowhere else does this court recognize a right to end a human life,” he said.
A question of ‘settled’ law
Legal scholars see the court’s reluctance to overturn past rulings, even highly controversial ones, as Mississippi’s greatest hurdle in Dobbs.
As anticipated, that legal principle, known as stare decisis, loomed large Wednesday, dominating the litigants’ oral arguments and the justices’ questions. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the newest addition to the court’s 6-3 conservative majority, said that stare decisis is “obviously the core of this case.”
The term comes from the Latin phrase, Stare decisis at non quieta movere, which means “to stand by things decided and not disturb settled points.”
Stewart, the Mississippi solicitor general, argued that legalized abortion remains an unsettled debate in the United States nearly a half-century after Roe. He argued that the issue should be left to democratically elected state legislatures, not the courts.
“The Constitution places its trust in the people. On hard issue after hard issue, the people make this country work,” he said.
“Abortion is a hard issue. It demands the best from all of us, not a judgment by just a few of us when an issue affects everyone. And when the Constitution does not take sides on it, it belongs to the people.”
In its court brief, Mississippi cites stare decisis as the reason Roe and Casey should be overturned.
“Roe and Casey are egregiously wrong. The conclusion that abortion is a constitutional right has no basis in text, structure, history, or tradition,” the brief states. Roe itself broke from precedent because it invoked “a general ‘right to privacy’ unmoored from the Constitution,” the state argues.
“Abortion is fundamentally different from any right this Court has ever endorsed. No other right involves, as abortion does, ‘the purposeful termination of a potential life,’” the brief states. “Roe broke from prior cases, Casey failed to rehabilitate it, and both recognize a right that has no basis in the Constitution.”
But Julie Rikelman, litigation director of the Center for Reproductive Rights, sharply disagreed.
“Casey and Roe were correct,” Rikelman, who represented Jackson Women’s Health, Mississippi’s last remaining abortion provider, told the justices.
She added that there is an “an especially high bar here” as the Supreme Court rejected “every possible reason” for overturning Roe when it decided Casey nearly 30 years ago.
“Mississippi’s ban on abortion two months before viability is flatly unconstitutional under decades of precedent. Mississippi asks for the court to dismantle this precedent and allow states to force women to remain pregnant and give birth against their will,” she said.
“Two generations have now relied on this right,” Rikelman continued. “And one out of every four women makes the decision to end a pregnancy.”
A third attorney arguing before the court Wednesday, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar, representing the Biden administration in opposition to Mississippi’s abortion law, couched the Dobbs case in similar terms. She said overturning Roe and Casey would be “an unprecedented contraction of individual rights and a stark departure from principles of stare decisis.”
Credibility concerns
Liberal justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan argued that overturning Roe and Casey would undermine the court’s integrity by signaling that its decisions were influenced by political pressure.
“Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the constitution and its reading are just political acts?” Sotomayor said. “I don’t see how it is possible.”
Conservative Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, however, pushed back against that reasoning. He noted that “some of the most consequential and important” decisions in the Supreme Court’s history overturned prior rulings. He cited such cases as the historic civil rights case Brown v. Board of Education, which struck down legalized segregation, and Miranda v. Arizona, which required police to inform suspects they have a right to remain silent.
“If the court had done that in those cases (and adhered to precedent), this country would be a much different place,” Kavanaugh said. Why then, he asked Rikelman, shouldn’t the court do the same in Dobbs, if it were to deem that Roe and Casey were wrongly decided?
“Because the view that a previous precedent is wrong, your honor, has never been enough for this court to overrule, and it certainly shouldn’t be enough here, when there’s 50 years of precedent,” Rikelman responded. The court needs a “special justification” to take such a step, she argued, saying that Mississippi has failed to provide any.
Said Rikelman: “It makes the same exact arguments the court already considered and rejected in its stare decisis analysis in Casey.”
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., a conservative, took up a similar line of questioning with Prelogar, the U.S. solicitor general.
“Is it your argument that a case can never be overruled simply because it was egregiously wrong?” he asked.
“I think that at the very least, the state would have to come forward with some kind of materially changed circumstance or some kind of materially new argument, and Mississippi hasn’t done so in this case,” Prelogar responded.
“Really?” Alito replied. “So suppose Plessy versus Ferguson (an 1896 decision that affirmed the constitutionality of racial segregation laws) was re-argued in 1897, so nothing had changed. Would it not be sufficient to say that was an egregiously wrong decision on the day it was handed down and now it should be overruled?”
“I think it should have been overruled, but I think that the factual premise was wrong in the moment it was decided, and the court realized that and clarified that when it overruled in Brown,” Prelogar said.
“So there are circumstances in which a decision may be overruled, properly overruled, when it must be overruled simply because it was egregiously wrong at the moment it was decided?” Alito asked.
When Prelogar didn’t directly answer the question, Alito pressed again.
“Can a decision be overruled simply because it was erroneously wrong, even if nothing has changed between the time of that decision and the time when the court is called upon to consider whether it should be overruled?” he asked. “Yes or no? Can you give me a yes or no answer on that?”
“This court, no, has never overruled in that situation just based on a conclusion that the decision was wrong. It has always applied the stare decisis factors and likewise found that they warrant overruling in that instance,” Prelogar said.
Roberts cites China, North Korea
While the main focus of Wednesday’s proceeding related to stare decisis, there was also discussion of the viability standard established by Roe.
“I’d like to focus on the 15-week ban because that’s not a dramatic departure from viability,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said in an exchange with Rikelman.
“It is the standard that the vast majority of other countries have. When you get to the viability standard (set at 24 to 28 weeks) we share that standard with the People’s Republic of China and North Korea,” he said.
In response, Rikelman said Roberts’ statement was “not correct,” arguing that “the majority of countries that permit legal access to abortion allow access right up until viability, even if they have nominal lines earlier.” She elaborated that while European countries may have 12- or 18-week limits, they allow exceptions for “broad social reasons, health reasons, socioeconomic reasons.”
A 2021 analysis by the Charlotte Lozier Institute found that 47 out of 50 European nations limit elective abortion prior to 15 weeks. Eight European nations, including Great Britain and Finland, do not allow elective abortion and instead require a specific medical or socioeconomic reason before permitting an abortion, the institute said.
The court may not announce a decision in the Dobbs case for several months. It may come at the end of its current term, in late June or early July, when major decisions are often announced.
[…]
Another clarifying media pose for James Martin, as he continues to publish his gay-enabling networking site under the letterhead of the USCCB. Or, maybe Courage (couragerc.org) is now linked (not yet as the alternative, but as “inclusive”)? And what, exactly, is a “relationship.”
Exactly, Peter!
And how exactly was Weakman’s (malapropism intended) “relationship” with the seminarian “sexual”?
Males inseminating one another’s intestines may be characterized in many ways, but it is in no way, sense or respect “sexual”.
Spot on! The vile genital gymnastics does not deserve the term sexual.
We’ve just been told that monkey pox is essentially a vinereal disease among men who have sex with men. It seems we have not learned the lesson of AIDS.
I gave of my “time, talent and treasure” to the archdiocese and I expected that my effort and gifts would be used to advance the Kingdom of God and proclaim the hope of salvation. How discouraging to learn I was abused, lied to and deceived into supporting sodomites. May God forgive us all.
Truth establishes courage, they are concomitant as we walk God’s path.
Proverbs 12:22 Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who act faithfully are his delight.
1 John 3:18 Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.
Psalm 145:18 The Lord is near to all who call on him, to all who call on him in truth.
Psalm 25:5 Lead me in your truth and teach me, for you are the God of my salvation; for you I wait all the day long.
Thanks and God’s rich blessings.
Maybe James Martin SCH should consider another perspective, that one about removing the beam in one’s own eye before pulling the speck of sawdust out of his brother’s. Martin’s own teaching and position creates, supports, and protects people like Weakland, so it’s a situation where the pot is calling the kettle black. Does anyone actually take this guy seriously?
It would be music to the ears of those who wish to destroy the church.
Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Romans 1:26-27 For this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Jude 1:7 Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
Soldier on my brother and thank you.
Leviticus 20:10 says to execute adulterers. Deuteronomy 22 says to stone non-virgins. Fortunately, we don’t follow the Bible’s verses on heterosexuals. 99% fornicate, not due to immorality, but due to the fact that in Bible days couples got married as young teens while today the average first-time groom is 29 and bride 27. A record number opt out of marriage altogether and those who do wed do so later and later in life. Let’s not have one set of standards for heterosexuals and another for LGBT folks.
Mr Rusty,
There’s the New Testament. Please check it out. Thanks!
🙂
A sodomite has no business being a bishop in the Catholic Church. What more can be said other than I pray for the immortal soul of all sodomites who have died whether they are clergy or layperson. I pray, too, for those who keep sodomites in their sin by defending the sinfulness of their act.
I agree but would add a sodomite has no business being a deacon, priest, or pope in the Catholic Church.
If I defend the sinfulness of something it means that I insist on its sinful quality. Surely what is objected to is speaking and writing in defence of the sinlessness of the activity under consideration? I offer this suggestion only tentatively; it may be that this is another example of British and Americans being separated by a common language.
“I just wanted to be loved. Is that so wrong?” I couldn’t pass on the Jon Lovitz/SNL sketch. Then of course there is the infamous radical Bill Ayers’ paen to American justice. “Guilty as sin. Free as a bird. Is America a great country or what?”. Not a day in jail for misuse of Church funds; covering up for predators, or his own predation. He did get a book contract. Francesco “Mercy” avant la lettre.
Did Weakland ever repent of his acts of sodomy and homosexual behavior? Or, did he try to normalize his behavior?
Listened to an Eastern Orthodox priest on the subject and he was very clear. He said: We are not given the knowledge or wisdom on how to judge the soul of another human being. Eternal Judgement is left to our Lord. Our Lord does give us the knowledge and wisdom to judge the behaviors of another human being so that we may make decisions that will lead to our own salvation, and that of our families, for which we are responsible. If the behavior of another person is sinful, then we must admonish the sinner, and disassociate with that person if necessary to protect our own souls, by “avoiding the near occasion of sin.”
Also, the same Orthodox priest said: Christ doesn’t change, rather it is us who must change by repenting our own sinful behaviors. Christ doesn’t teach that sin is not sin, rather Our Lord calls us to repent of our sins, for without repentance, we cannot receive the merciful judgement of God.
I wish Roman Catholic priests were clearer in their teachings by simply saying we don’t know the fate of Weakland’s eternal soul as that has not been revealed to any of us, only Our Lord and Savior knows. We do know he committed mortal sins that would have kept him out of eternal paradise with our Lord, and we must also avoid these same mortal sins to preserve our own souls and advise others to avoid these same mortal sins.
The man is dead and may God have mercy on his soul.
Just have a Mass offered for him and move on – the subject is closed.
Amen.
Amen. Lot’s of folks ready to cast the first stone.
Weakland and his defenders used plenty of metaphorical stones to crush the skulls of the unborn without apology. Yes, there is reason to be frustrated that his defenders never learn, which reflects the ongoing crisis in the Church, which recrucifies Our Lord every day. Nonetheless, we pray for mercy on his soul.
James Martin,
Jesus’ friendship with sinners is not scandalous. After all, that is what the God who seeks the return of the lost do. There is nothing scandalous about that because He is always exhorting them to metanoia. The sinners are told that they will be thrown in hell where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth if they don’t repent. He tells them that the road to hell is wide and the road to life, narrow.
What is scandalous is your enabling of sin. What is scandalous is your promotion of sin and not calling it what it is – a grave transgression against our All Holy God – so that people will repent.
What is scandalous is that you who have been ordained to be a priest of God so terribly promotes what is the opposite of what God teaches we should do.
You’d rather people remain in the muck and the filth rather than seeking the painful (excruciating) path to freedom and to the Lord.
Thank you!
James Martin correctly states, “The heart of Jesus’s message is that no one is beyond God’s infinite mercy.” He didn’t add, however, that one must repent, confess and accept absolution for that mercy to be effective. Unfortunately, Martin fails in teaching, but succeeds miraculously in misleading.
I concluded a couple of years ago that prudence demands I completely ignore Fr. James Martin, SJ. I would no more read anything he writes or listen to anything he says than I would drink poison. That said, I have no objection to CWR reporting on his escapades in the interest of exposing dysfunction and corruption in the Church.
The Hypocritical Pharisees still roam about us today. As a ‘Straight-male’ I have friends who are homosexual, both men and women. Why they have this way of life is beyond my understanding. Quoting Jesus in Jn 8:7; “Let the man among you who has no sin be the first to cast a stone…,” I can’t imagine what went through their minds as the mob drifted away as John notes, “beginning with the elders.” Each of us has enough to atone for before a loving and forgiving God so, if your consider your self a good Catholic Christian act like the one you profess to believe in. Allow your brothers and sisters the freedom to live as sons and daughters of the Father you call your own. Don’t be like the older brother in the parable of the ‘Prodigal Son’ and refuse to accept your brother or sister as your Father does. Pray that they may find peace and acceptance in a world that is full of hate and intolerance for those who are “not like me.” Remember you are unique, a one-time creation and loved by God. so, remember my Pharisaical ‘brothers and sisters’ so are they.
Mr. Fargo, we are to love one another as Christians & meet them where they are but it doesn’t mean leaving them there. Christ has something better to offer them.
Let’s review scripture as it appears as if we may have read different versions. In the Catholic tradition, not that according to James Martin, God detests sin. Have you heard or read the scripture which teaches that principle?
Re the parable. The Father allowed his son the freedom, but the Father does not follow his son to the foreign land. Does the Father approve of his son’s action? No. Only when the son/sinner ‘returns to his Father’s house’ (otherwise known as repentance), the Father then forgives the son and welcomes him back home.
Jesus told the sinner to “Sin no more.” Jesus did not tell the sinner: “Carry on.”
God’s love is for everyone, but God shares His beatitude and His eternal glory only with those who love Him. John 14:21 has Jesus saying: “Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.” If we love Him, we keep His commandments.
In numerous places in his Epistles, Paul proclaims that fornicators and sodomites, thieves, robbers, and adulterers will not inherit God’s kingdom. Just as Jim Martin SJ is free to describe Weakland as he does, so are we free to apply any of St. Paul’s labels as we see fit and appropriate to the homosexual bishop that Weakland proclaimed himself to be.
John Fargo,
Is this desire to misread and misinterpret the Lord wilful or just ignorant?
This loving and forgiving God loves us and forgives us precisely because there is something TO FORGIVE. This SOMETHING TO FOGIVE is sin. Just because we have an inclination to a particular sin does not give us a free pass. Each of us is told to repent. Forgiveness and repentance go together.
The same loving and forgiving God also said that death comes like a thief in the night at the time you do not know so be prepared or you’ll be cast out. This same merciful God tells us that we should tell sinners to repent and if we don’t then not only is their sin on them, but their sin is on us who fail to teach them.
Why would you not exhort your LGBT friends to repentance? It’s like a “friend” seeing someone ODying on heroine or recklessly driving towards a cliff saying: keep going my friend that seems to be your pleasure so go ahead.
We have so corrupted the meaning of love and compassion that we think affirming people in the depth of their depravity is compassion and mercy.
Christ did not die an excruciating death for us so that we can that think we can go on living a depraved life because he’ll forgive me anyway.
Grace is not cheap!
I hope you will have the courage (yes courage)to tell your friends like it is and in so doing truly love them and desire their good. At the moment you are affirming them in their sin.
Unless of course like so many people you don’t really think sin is a big deal.
Loading up my portfolio with the stocks of millstone manufacturers.
🤑 This emoji sports dollar-sign eyes.
I, a Mass going every Sunday all my life, Cradle Catholic, was rejected by the Archdiocese of Milwaukee seminary in the mid 1980s. My parish priest said that it was odd that the seminary gave no reason for the rejection. Later in life, a fellow Catholic from the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, told me that the seminary had a problem. The straight seminarians had been complaining about the noise from homosexual sex going on in the next dorm room while they were trying to pray. So the seminary director simply stopped accepting straight candidates for the priesthood to solve the problem. She said this was Archbishop Weakland’s preference. Another friend told me that his parish priest in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee referred to the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, St. Francis seminary as St. Francis Sexinary. I am sure the Church lost a great number of good priest vocations by the evil acts of Bishop Weakland, and other liberal Bishops around the world, in their diabolical plan to build the ‘Gay Lobby’ in the Vatican, by grooming seminaries with only gay men.
More posturing and gaslighting by Martin. Weakland never repented his practice and promotion of sodomy. To be appalled by such a man is not contrary to the example of Christ eating with sinners. Christ always had a message for sinners: “Repent.” And Martin always has a message for sinners: “Relax.”
Mr. Olson;
I have a question – why does it seem to me that every uttering, every opinion, and now every apology from this sad little man merits being reported on by CWR? Surely you have reached the saturation point, as many of US have.
Enough is enough.
As a lifelong Traditionalist Catholic and a minor seminarians during the years before the full Modernist impact of Vatican II took control of the Church, I’ve maintained a conscious awareness of Fr. Martin’s reputation as the “resident heretic” of Notre Dame. I believe that his religious beliefs are distorted by Modernism and I take whatever he publishes and supports as opposite to the tried and true Traditionalist views that I have studied and believed in for all of my Catholic life. For the good of the Church he should have retired many years ago and gone into religious seclusion to examine fully where he has failed to follow the teachings of Christ, the Fathers of the Church and the Saints and Blesseds of the Church.
I think you give him to much credit for having a philosophical bent.
Keep in mind this guy has a degree from the Wharton School. He worked as a financial analyst at GE in the Jack Welch days.
Just as companies pander to the alphabet, Martin does. He’s created a personal brand and a cottage industry by staying focused on talking about the alphabet all the time.
In short, this is all about the Benjamins
🤑 This emoji sports dollar-sign eyes.
“It is quite human for the sinner to acknowledge his weakness and to ask mercy for his failings; what is unacceptable is the attitude of one who makes his own weakness the criterion of the truth about the good, so that he can feel self-justified, without the need to have recourse to God and His mercy” — Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor. –
(Quoted by John Likoudis, writing at Catholic Culture.)
Edit please: Paul Likoudis, not John
Any man, homosexual or heterosexual, who seeks the priesthood, MUST embrace the teachings of the church – believe, support, teach and live those teachings clearly, fully and faithfully. If a priest or bishop (or, God forbid, a cardinal) finds he cannot do this, he should have the integrity to resign the priesthood. Ordinary people, like myself, look to priests for spiritual and moral guidance. How can a priest give such guidance if he is living a double life? If you don’t believe what the church believes, you should not be a priest.
Speaking of Weakland, the Library at Catholic Culture has an article describing Weakland’s role in post VCII liturgical reform. Seems we owe Weakland our thanks for the banally insipid ‘music’ in many NO liturgies today.
Weakland’s dissent from and distortion of VCII’s Sacrosanctum concilium (particularly regarding sacred music) is detailed at https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9038
Thanks, Meiron, for the tip-off to Weakland’s musical “contribution”.
Note Martin’s words; Weakland’s “sins and crimes” were cover-up of sex abuse and blowing $600K of embezzled money. Nothing about engaging in sodomy and breaking his vow of chastity. In Martin’s sick mind, the sodomy aint a big deal.
Religion, politics and all other walks of life have good, honest people and lowlifes. Religion has always been about power and always will be, same with politics. Many religious coverups abound the higher up the ladder you go. Plus there are many more we will never know about.
As much as I wish for the Mercy of God for him for his sins and his repentence,, Father Martin should say as little as possible sbout this man. Instead he should constantly and earnestly pray for his soul rather than clairify his position or seek to repair the reputation he calls a friend.. This would be the best Father Martin could do for his friend and himself.
If you can’t let someone die without criticizing their eulogy, get your rotten heart checked for worms.
Catholics don’t have eulogies though, at least not in the same way as others do And this all illustrates why.
We pray in charity for the soul of the departed. Period.
Martin is in many ways a fitting eulogist for Weakland. Both of them epitomize the difficulties driving the disintegration of the cadre of priests.
More: “When the tawdry truth was going to come out, he ‘paid,’ to use McFadd’” ‘misappropriated,’ or just plain ‘stole’ would be more like it.”
https://www.crisismagazine.com/2022/archbishop-weakland-stole-more-than-money-he-stole-the-faith?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=archbishop-weakland-stole-more-than-money-he-stole-the-faith
Weakland is a modern version of the Fall of the House of Eli. Eli’s worthless sons were adulterers and treated the offerings to God with contempt.
Homosexualist Martin should have been laicized and excommunicated years ago.
Judgement does come by Our Lord who is THE JUST JUDGE, we as the baptized should enforce to others HIS teachings. That is what is expected as we carry our cross. A unmarried woman sleeping with a married man is the same as a man sleeping with another man.. it equally is a SIN. No stone is cast if the brethren is in charity explaining the SIN and trying to bring salvation to that soul. Unfortunately, it is misleading not enforce the sacrament of confession. Not to enforce SIN. And what happens when one is in SIN, the Holy Spirit must leave.. HE CAN’T STAY…GOD is not sin… but the enemy sure is and likes to fill the minds with lies and convince it’s not so bad…As the woman who had many husbands and with another man who was not her husband, Jesus told her to SIN NO MORE.
I would love to sit next to Jesus and listen to what he said to the tax collectors and those in sin. HE would’ve been graceful and caring enough to tell them to stop.
Adultery and sodomy are both alike in being grave sins but they do differ significantly in other ways.
It’s within the realm of possibility that a man and woman who have committed adultery could later marry following Confession and the death of a spouse. That’s never going to be the case for a SSA relationship.
But I hear what you are saying about counseling others to sin no more. That’s a priest’s job and if he fails in that he will be held accountable to a higher standard.