Is Dublin's Archbishop Diarmuid Martin being Intellectually honest?

The Archbishop of Dublin has taken umbrage at people stating the obvious meaning of the words and phrases that he uses when he approaches the issue of homosexual acts. This time concerning his interview with Vincent Browne.

For the umteempth time, he claims that he has been mis-understood again! Yet another clarification is offered.

The problem is not that he is mis-understood, the problem is his refusal to publicly attest to the immorality of homosexual acts and publicly declare that he is opposed to the legalisation of gay / civil union. It is really that simple.
Until Dr Martin does both these things it is difficult to see anything but his refusal to publicly endorse Church teaching.

He says below he does not know about the moral culpability of individuals in regards homosexual acts.
Thing is, as he should well know - An intrinsically evil act is one that is objectively wrong in and of itself, and which therefore can never be justified by circumstances or consequences.

There are no circumstances in which an intrinsically evil act - such as homosexual acts - would be morally good.
So his reply of not knowing subjective moral culpability is nonsense - We must ask if he is being  intellectually honest on this matter?

Securus iudicat orbis terrarum ("The whole world will safely judge"), declared St. Augustine of the Church's all-embracing Catholicity.

Below is the statement from Archbhishop's House concerning his interview with Vincent Browne:

15/1/09 Church Teaching on Mutuality of the Sexes

In a recent television interview, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin was quizzed about the significance of certain phrases taken, often in isolation, from documents of the Church on homosexuality.

In response the first question of the interview Archbishop Martin clearly and without hesitation replied that he fully accepted the teaching of the Church on the morality of homosexual acts in its entirety.

In a later section of the interview Archbishop Martin was asked a question which touched on the moral culpability of individuals. He replied that he could not make generalized statements about individual situations, noting “I do not know”, in a sense in which the “not knowing” referred not to the Church’s teaching but to the specific circumstances of individuals.

Unfortunately, many anonymous sources have spread the view that Archbishop Martin had refused to endorse Catholic teaching. One website even invites its readers to begin looking at the interview a full two minutes after the point where the Archbishop spoke of his full adherence to the teaching of the Church.

Archbishop Martin confirms once again his complete adherence to this teaching which also constitutes the norm for teaching and preaching in the diocese.

The Archbishop has repeatedly, over a number of years, stressed how the Church’s position on human sexuality is based on a vision in which the mutuality of the sexes is recognised as something anthropologically unique and irreplaceable and not as a simple cultural construct which can be adapted and changed.

The relevant church teachings are reproduced here:

Catechism of the Catholic Church (2357, 2358, 2359)

Considerations regarding proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons (June 3, 2003)

Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons (1/10/1986)

Persona Humana Declaration on certain questions concerning sexual ethics

Previous posts on this issue:
post 1, post 2, post 3, post 4.