Grace & Peace!
Deconi, while maria_teresa is more than capable of speaking for herself and responding to you (as I’m sure she will!), I’d like to jump in, too.
I disagree. S/He does not elucidate; rather, seeking justifiable validation in the details and render them subjective instead of accepting simple language!
I honestly don’t know what you think I’m doing here, or what my argument is. I’m not trying to render the catechism subjective, whatever that means. Nor am I seeking justifiable validation from the catechism for homosexual acts, something which it is clear cannot be found therein (my previous posts indicate as much). I’m explicating my understanding of what the catechism says. Review my posts, review what maria_teresa writes and tell us: where are we going wrong?
If your argument is merely that a plain reading of the catechism would not lead us to these conclusions, I think you’re displaying some truly myopic and intensely uncritical thinking tending toward an attitude of, “but the catechism was never meant to be interpreted! It’s simple!” I find such an attitude perplexing and ultimately naive, particularly in light of the history of Christian moral and theological explication. Stating, as you do, that something like this is just a of matter of “accepting simple language” is usually just a confession that we *wish *something like this were as easy as we’d like it to be. It isn’t. And that’s too bad, but that’s just how things are.
I also sense an indignation in your views which lean toward defense, rather than illumination.
I will confess to having an ax to grind here. But it is because I find the logical conclusions of the catechism simply inexplicable. You say I’m reaching those conclusions in error. Where am I going wrong? And if I *am *wrong, show me how the *practical *consequences of my conclusions (quoted in maria_teresa’s post) are in fact different from those of your conclusions. I don’t think you’ll be able to. Which, to me, only raises this question: “if the practical consequences of our conclusions are identical, then are not our conclusions representative of the same idea, but only stated differently?” My hypothesis is that you don’t like my conclusions because you would rather not have to admit that you actually believe them already. Prove me wrong.
The language is clear that homoSEXUALITY is a disorder of a kind. It is not addressing homoAFFECTION because the orientation can only mean and include one MAJOR flaw; the sex bit!
If I knew what you were saying here, I may be able to respond to it more effectively.
But let’s look at what the catechism says and what it doesn’t, yes? It uses the term homosexuality. It does not use the term homoaffection. It does not use the term “orientation” either. These are terms that perhaps you would like the catechism to use. It does not. It has nothing to say for or against homoaffection, probably because the term is a neologism. It has nothing, for that matter, to say against the term homosocial, which is the more well-known word used to describe the idea I think you’re trying to describe. But it doesn’t matter, ultimately, because homosexuality is not merely a disorder after a kind, it is a disordered sexuality. Which is to say, it is a disordered affectivity, a broken relational capacity, a flaw in the very thing that the catechism says affects all aspects of the human person.
The catechism states that the homosexual inclination is objectively disordered. This before any act has been committed. Again, the catechism says that the inclination is objectively disordered. The initial flaw isn’t in the presence of the recollection of a sinful act (which is the only way I can imagine an act as a flaw in an orientation…), the flaw is in the sexuality of the “afflicted” person. The flaw is that they are homosexual. That may not mean that homosexuality is sinful (the catechism is clear on this). The flaw is that they are homosexual. This is the logic of the catechism. That you may not like it is immaterial.
(CONTINUED…)
