In any case, I’ll try and point out in a nutshell what the CCC is addressing;
I appreciate your effort to break down your understanding, here. But I don’t find it convincing.
Deconi;6929119:
homosexuality (can only be specifically mean sex.)
inclination (can only be specifically mean sex )
This is not quite the case. This is what the catechism says:
“Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.”
“The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.”
You can see, then, that homosexuality describes a kind of relation (which I can only take to be a reference not to sex only, but to a way of relating, generally), an attraction, a tendency, and an inclination. Sex acts are not included in these ideas. The desire to perform an act, a way of relating, an attraction to a particular object of desire, a tendency to desire a particular object, and an inclination to a kind of relationship are all what are discussed here. They are all disordered, according to the catechism. They aren’t all technically sinful, necessarily, though.
the disorder;
- found in the first because the word ‘homosexual’ identifies a specific sexual orientaion which is forbidden in Scriptures.
- found in the second when associated to the first because the first has been forbidden.
The catechism does not use the term “sexual orientation” and understands Scriptural passages to refer to homosexual acts, not to homosexuality as it has defined it. ‘Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”’ The disorder lies in the deep-seated tendency which represents an objectively disordered inclination (see above). The acts, therefore, are necessarily depraved and disordered, too.
human person;
- made by and in the image of God and therefore possess divine dignity
- can house the disorder in some, if not all, which disorders the disposition BUT NOT the divine dignity.
From what we’ve discussed so far, I cannot see any other place that the disorder lies than in the sexuality itself, described thus by the catechism: “*Sexuality *affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others.” The capacity for human wholeness that a homosexual has is diminished by virtue of their disorder, so too their ability to form bonds of communion with others. This seems clear given what the catechism says.
The catechism does not specifically say that homosexuals are less human than heterosexuals or possess less divine dignity. I’ve stated previously that it is not so much the case that a homosexual has less humanity, according to the catechism, but that the expression of their humanity must be recognized by them and others to be deficient, and they must therefore accept a limitation to their experience of human fullness.
why and how;
- read the rest of the CCC on the subject.
Could you not be bothered to answer the why and how? Personally, we don’t need to go into it as the meat of our discussion is in the previous couple sections, but I’m just curious.
what to do;
- what all are called to do, the same as it ever was!
Similar question here. Are you referring to the call to chastity? I’ve already gone into how the call to chastity is actually a different call for homosexuals and for those who have a properly ordered sexuality–that is, a single heterosexual may desire and pursue chaste romantic companionship, but a single homosexual’s desire for the same must be seen as disordered and therefore must be eradicated–in other words, they must seek to desire not to desire what their desiring capacity desires because all such desires will be inappropriate.
Because a heterosexual man may desire a romantic relationship with a woman in either appropriate or inappropriate ways (the former are commendable and chaste, the latter are neither). But according to the catechism, there is no appropriate way for a homosexual man to desire a romantic relationship with another man.
However, the teaching that we can know a tree by its fruit seem to suggest that the catechism’s conclusion is incorrect and should be amended to suggest an understanding that there are, in fact, appropriate
and inappropriate ways that a homosexual man (for instance) may desire a romantic relationship with another man. And the desire, being good, there should be a way to express it chastely–that is, chastity becomes a positive virtue that encourages human wholeness in the homosexual, and *not merely *a negative ideal, the pursuit of which represents a flight from what we may discover ourselves to be.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
