It's hard to follow the pope's reasoning or his apparent infatuation with homosexuals, writes David Adams
AS END-of-year addresses go, Pope Benedict's certainly takes some beating.
Not for him the traditional-style "peace and goodwill to all" or "love thy neighbour as thyself" seasonal message.
Instead, he decided to warn against the dangers of homosexual and transsexual behaviour, claiming that the blurring of gender is as big a threat to the future of humankind as the destruction of the rainforests.
And there was me worrying about relatively minor things, such as rogue states, lunatic leaders, nuclear proliferation, international terrorism, and worldwide economic meltdown (not to mention religious fundamentalism).
It's hard to follow the pope's reasoning on this, seeing as most informed opinion is agreed that the foremost threat to the future of life on the planet comes from heterosexuality and its outworking. That is, from an exploding world population and the ever-increasing human consumption of, and competition for, resources.
I imagine that even the most rabid homophobe would draw the line at trying to blame gays and lesbians for lumbering the world with too many people.
Indeed, it could be argued that homosexuality (albeit in a minuscule way) acts as something of a counter to the threat posed by population growth.
Still, as a highly intelligent man, the pope must surely realise this.
So what precisely is his problem then?
Perhaps he thinks that homosexuality is a dangerously alluring lifestyle choice.
It is worth remembering at this point that the Catholic Church teaches that homosexual orientation is not a sin, but homosexual acts are (which, by happy coincidence, lets God off a sharp theological hook for creating gays and lesbians in the first place).
This isn't dissimilar from the church's teaching on all other "sins" - that is, it's okay to be tempted, just so long as you don't succumb.
What possible difference can the pope see between a practising and a non-practising, ie closet, homosexual that could present a danger to everyone else? Other than if he believes that the more open and accepted gay and lesbian people become within society, the more tempted the rest of us might be to join them.
Perhaps that other hoary old chestnut about gay man spreading HIV and Aids, and ultimately decimating humankind, has the pope alarmed as well.
If it does, then he's looking in entirely the wrong direction.
By far the greatest problem with the spread of HIV and Aids comes from practising heterosexuals, and, to a far lesser degree, from mainlining drug users.
If everyone practised safe sex to the same degree as gay people do, then we'd soon have all sexually transmitted diseases on the run, and might even be able to put a brake on population growth.
But then again, I am reminded that the pope doesn't consider safe sex an acceptable option for anybody.
A somewhat paradoxical position to hold for someone so concerned about the future of mankind, considering that millions of (overwhelmingly heterosexual) people in developing countries around the world continue to die from Aids as a result of the Catholic Church's opposition to the use of condoms.
At a stretch then (admittedly, a very big stretch), if you follow the same logic as the pope, it is possible to see why homosexuality might be a threat to the future of humankind.
But only if you believe that homosexuality is a dangerously attractive lifestyle choice, and that the use of condoms should not be permitted under any circumstances.
Which just goes to prove that, no matter how intelligent you are, if you begin from completely the wrong premise, pure logic can take you off on a tangent and into the realms of absurdity.
Speaking of absurdities, hard to beat though the pope's end-of-year address undoubtedly was, it didn't stop President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran from trying.
In his Christmas message to the world (thoughtfully broadcast by Channel 4), Ahmadinejad claimed, among other things, that if Christ were on Earth today "He would stand with the people in opposition to bullying, ill-tempered and expansionist powers.
"He would hoist the banner of justice and love for humanity to oppose warmongers, occupiers, terrorists and bullies the world over.
"He would fight against the tyrannical policies of prevailing global economic and political systems, as He did in His lifetime."
Although I'm not so sure about Our Lord fighting against global economic and political systems "in His lifetime", all told it seemed a reasonable enough interpretation of the message of Christ as applied to our modern-day world - if only it had been delivered by someone other than President Ahmadinejad, that is.
This is a man, after all, who has a pathological hatred of Jews, persecutes the Christian community in Iran, and has previously spoken of wanting to "wipe Israel off the map".
I have to confess, though, that if I had been presented with prior copies of both addresses - one lecturing on the dangers of homosexuality and the other expounding on the love of Christ - and asked to guess which belonged to the religious leader of the Christian world and which to the president of Iran, I might well have wrongly attributed them.
It's a strange world, as undoubtedly this year of 2009 will continue to prove.
David Adams's biweekly column normally appears on Thursdays; Garret FitzGerald is on leave