A tale of two apologists.
First, the Shea. Naturally Mark waded into this one as we all could guess. He wasn't alone. Many I saw on the more radical leftwing segment of the Church swung into action. A couple openly condemned it, but most did what Mark appears to be doing here, and that's stating variations on 'next year and then Jerusalem.' That is Development of Doctrine, the key teaching upon which the whole of liberal Protestant denominations came to be founded, is the capstone.
With development of doctrine you have a real thing - just read the Bible. And ostensibly this real thing is alive and well and forever teaching us what parts of old doctrines need discarded or rewritten. It was such a powerful force in mainline Protestantism that I remember debating issues with leaders from those denominations who had no problem saying that they didn't know how to square, say, gay marriage with Jesus' claim God made marriage around man and woman, but they could assume development of doctrine and discover Jesus never actually said such a thing after all. It became a 'get out of jail free' card when it comes to changing things around to keep with the times.
For Mark, he doesn't give an actual, definitive answer to where the Church will go from here. Thankfully the Church has embraced the post-Freudian idea that we are defined by our sexual desires, and that those are likely as much a part of God's plan for us as any other charism. Therefore as long as no penetration is involved, all is blessing and glory where our sexual inclinations are concerned. It's just that pesky no physical sex part that's the tricky point. To this, Mark appears to argue that it's about the sex and the sacraments. The sex is about the person, and the sacraments are for the person not the other way around, and since someday the sacraments will pass but the dignity of the person will not, well, you do the math.
The second piece is from Dawn Eden, who has openly apologized for the harm she caused by standing up to modern, liberal values and beliefs. In this piece, she makes it about love. God is love and love is love, and all you need is love, and I am the walrus and a hard day's night and all. It's about the love and the chastity. Once again, the gift of same sex desires can be gloriously lived out in love because that's what it's all about. Exactly why this desire leads to a sinful act if fulfilled and yet we insist God doesn't tempt us to sin, I'm not sure. But it's about the love, and that's good enough. Naturally her piece tends toward that approach in which we insist same sex attraction shouldn't be treated any differently than any other sinful inclination all while treating it differently than we treat any other sinful inclination.
Now, I will not wade into the meat and potatoes of this. Others far more versed and schooled in the nitty-gritty can do the heavy lifting. I will note that much of what they are saying is merely what the Church teaches, and has been teaching for many years now. There is development of doctrine. There is modifying in light of new discoveries. There is, for want of a better phrase, keeping up with the Jonses. When the world zigs, the Church had best zig with it lest it zag in the wrong direction and be laughed at, or worse. I'm at a loss to figure how someone could say that hasn't been the Church's approach for quite some time. And it isn't alone. That's where many religions have been since it appeared humanity entered into a new age of finally discovering how things really work.
But what struck me in both of these was something I've noticed that is common when debating various topics driven by the modern Left. Notice that in both, there is no question as to the motives of the LGBTQ community, openly gay believers, gay activists, or anything. They are pure as the wind driven (but not white) snow. There is no dealing with the seedier sides, or possibility that it is all part of a much larger revolution aiming at the very heart of the Faith. There is not even the possibility that anything but the pure quest for love and God is at the heart of everything to do with this call to challenge the Church's teachings regarding one of the most fundamental beliefs in the Christian stockpile: the very definition of humanity, its relations with itself and subsequently with God.
Nope. Dawn doesn't go into much regarding detractors or those troubled by the Church's direction. Mark, of course, makes it clear where the bad motives are. Echoing my former ethics professor David Gushee, he assumes it's always been about the kindly liberals pushing forward against the ever clinging conservatives fighting the Left's true revelations due to their wicked ways. And in a way not at all foreign to Pope Francis, he can assume the motives for not jumping on the good ship Leftism are the most reprehensible, while the inner intentions of those individuals indulging in even full out gay sex (or abortion, or any 'sin of the left') should never be questioned or judged.
That is, IMHO, one of the most powerful weapons in the Left's arsenal, that every debate begins with the assumption of the Left's infallibility and blameless motives. So true is what the Left proposes, so clear the evils the Left is attempting to fix, so blameless the Left's designs, that any resistance can only be attributed to the most questionable, if not the most evil, of reasons. Just pick a topic: immigration, socialism, gay rights, transgender rights, Covid lockdowns, gun control - the list is endless.
After all, it's how Pope Francis could so easily accept the decidedly progressive spin on Global Warming. Are there scientists who question the mainline narrative regarding climate change? Sure. But if you recall, Pope Francis had no problem dismissing them as a wretched brood likely on the fossil fuel industry dole, and therefore not as purely motivated as those who march to the MMGW beat. Same here. Same anywhere in which we approach issues driven by the modern Left. And that, kiddies, is a powerful attack that those who would resist the directions in which we are going have yet to overcome.
One more thing. During my sojourn with the Orthodox, I will say it has done a better job resisting the 'times changes, churches change' approach to the world. Better, but not solid. Now, after about two generations of post-Soviet believers, the up and coming wee ones are itching to join the West in at least this regard, and shuffle off some old, antiquated notions about genders, sex and 'reproductive health' if nothing else. How long the Orthodox can hold out is anyone's guess. If they are smart, they'll look long and hard and see where too much of that has gotten the West. But then, if Catholics were smart, they would look at where too much of that got all of those dying Protestant denominations.