However, given the Spanish current events referenced in the article, well, really, what choice did the man have? We can (and often have) debate whether homosexuality or even abortion can be reconciled with core Christian doctrine (no, this is not an invitation to reopen those debates). There's no debate on the Roman Catholic Churchs view of each, and if the Pope remained mute on both issues during an official church visit to Spain, to consecrate a church, no less, that would just be ridiculous. He's there to sanctify the church; he can't simply ignore the fact that the country in which he's doing so has within the last five years enshrined two distinct and extreme violations of church law within its secular law.

I don't know Spanish law, but it's not the US, and certainly separation of church and state is not a widely accepted policy in Vatican City. There are many legitimate discussions to be had there, too, since Spain is under no obligation to accept any papal influence over its laws (and as a foreign head of state, whether or not everyone is willing to accept that, there's strong reason NOT to allow his influence over Spanish law). The Pope retains the title of "Christs Vicar on Earth", however, and Roman Catholic canon law is quite explicit on both points. He would be irresponsible to consecrate a church in a country where profaning a Catholic sacrament is now protected by federal law and NOT comment on the latter. A responsible religious leader must walk a fine line between adhering to the principles of their faith, encouraging that adherence in others, while not trying to COMPEL that adherence from anyone. Personally, I think he did OK here; the fact is anyone who denies Europe, the West in general, has become increasingly secular in the past two century or two is simply not paying attention. Beyond that he doesn't seem to have done much more than reiterate Roman Catholic disagreement with recent changes to Spanish law, prompted by said changes and their novelty.