The pedophilia example works as far as he was actually applying it - to show that the 'naturalness' and the morality of an action are two different things, not that pedophilia and homosexuality are in any way analogous. This works both ways, of course(if homosexuality is in any way unnatural, it still wouldn't follow that homosexuality is immoral). As for the moral vs. legal issue, I would agree that the questions are separate. But I don't know whether I'd characterize it the way you've said it. Yes, if you believe that the Vatican is wrong(or at least that it is not authoritative), then what the vatican thinks would be irrelevant. But say you're the guy who believes that the Catholic church holds the truth and the rest of it. Moral truth in that case is hardly a "personal disapproval" and is very much a "universal prohibition", from that perspective.