“The refusal to take sides on great moral issues is itself a decision. It is a silent acquiescence to evil. The Tragedy of our time is that those who still believe in honesty lack fire and conviction, while those who believe in dishonesty are full of passionate conviction.”
― Arb. Fulton J. Sheen

So after 35 years of JPII and BXVI this is where we are?

One thing I learned from Marxism, namely, to not look at the surface meaning of words, rather at their actional or behavioral implications or, simply, what do they seem to justify, though they really do not do so. Now, justifying something rests upon so-called "words" of principles. A principle has no exception if it is universal and all embracing.
Seeming universal premise: "All diversity is wealth" (coming from a follower of a Pope who has condemned "wealth"). ALL is a universal term that allow no exceptions. If "all" my book are on a shelf, not one of my books is not on the shelf. "Diversity" entails variety, divergence, heterogeneity, versification, etc. "All diversity" means that there is nothing, absolutely no variant, that is not "wealth". (I leave aside the utter hypocracy that the Latin Mass, particularly for Franciscans of the Immaculate, was not accepted as part of the liturgical diversity constituting the liturgical wealth of the Church.) Drag Queens, marchin hand and hand and French kissing and genital fondling, all this would certainly consitute a variant proper to marching diversity. Is the Prelate ready to march hand in hand, kissing Drag Queens and letting his sex organs be played with in a parade? No!!! By the force of logic, the general principle "all diversity is wealth" is thereby falsified. Would the good prelate want to wine and dine and praise Herman Göring or accept the dinner invitation of the commandant of Auschwitz to dine with him and his family? Perhaps, a baked Jew would be a variant menu? No!!! Influenced by a good Marxist that I know (to parrot the Pope), I follow his analysis and conclude that the general principal was but a fake, a diversion, maybe even a lie. Why? It is clear that "ALL divversity is not welth", including for the prelate. What does this mean referentially.
It means that the prelate himself has affirmed homosexuality as a positive value for himself. (I do not mean that he wants to participate, only that he finds homosexuality in actu to be a positive value.) But to cover up his real desire or personal preferrence the prelate has formulated his specific preference in general terms such that the "it is my preference" is seemingly only a specifying conclusion from his general principle. (Hey, Marxist thinking does possess a point or two.) My conclusions is that the prelate is a swindler, a con man, consciously (which I think is probable) or unconsciously (which suggests he need psychiatric treatent). The logical error is too enormous fare a simple error.
No one should hold that a new "paradigm" is really being used, rather it is an excuse. But, "paradigm" stems from Thomas Kuhn's famous The Structure of Scientific Revolution. The shift from Newtonian paradigms to quantum paradigms is, according to Kuhn, no continuation, rather a break because the paradigms and their derivative contradict each other. In simple terms, the prelate is surreptitiously claiming that the Church has fundamentally changed doctine in sexuality, whereas he is uttering his preference. If a real new paradigm is used, then the previous and the current ones exclude each other. We have to do with a new, different, and radically other Church.