I have read a suggestion that the (hitherto unknown) curialist who has decided to grab his moment of glory should have been disciplined for sin rather than for news conferences.
I don't agree. I wouldn't like to think that there were witch-hunts going on in the CDF; and, given my awareness of my own frailties with regard to all Ten Commandments, I strongly believe that Mercy is more important than Discipline. At both the personal and professional levels, everybody who has ever spoken to me about Gerhard Mueller has described him as a kind man and a gentle pastor; I think he has been rather badly treated by his colleague. But I expect the man's own bishop will have carefully explained that to him. Very carefully, I hope.
Proclaiming and publicly defending any sin is worse than committing it. I invite you to read the passage in Romans 1 about homosexual actions, and to dwell particularly on the last verse of the chapter. Using the conventions of Greek rhetoric, S Paul works up to a climax of condemnation; Death (thanatos) is the deserving of those who do (prassontes) such things (toiauta), but-and-also (alla kai) of those who syneudokousin with the doers.
Greek, like German, enjoys compound verbs, and syneudokein is a double compound. Dokein has, as one of its meanings, to think. Eu- stuck on the front gives it a sense of well, favourably. And the syn- adds the meaning of with. So the verb means to give ones warm approval to the commission of the perversion.
Publicly doing what one can to promote and encourage a perversion is a graver sin than to commit the perversion oneself in private, because one is deliberately drawing others, who may be victims of temptation, into this Death-deserving (S Paul uses the phrase thanatou axioi) sin. Promoting this perversion is thus a cruel attack upon the spiritual well-being of good people who have done their best to control an inclination to do "toiauta". It is, surely, just about the most deeply homophobic act one could commit.
There may, however, just conceivably, be good to come out of this sad episode. I wonder what you think about the following speculation. Is it possible that there is a homosexualist mafia at work within the Synod and/or its secretariate, advocating change in one area (remarriage of the divorced) so that they can use it to piggy-back their own cause (promotion of homosexual perversion)? You see, my own experience is that something very like this did happen in the Church of England: some homosexualist clergy, so it seemed to me, keenly supported the 'ordination' of women because they discerned that such a radical 'rethink' on gender would be a useful springboard for their own sad cause.
But the messy complications arising from the episode of this sad apparatchik and his little friend might make the larger players in any such sinister game (if there is one) wonder if now is quite the tactical moment to Go for the Big Prize.