I don’t think it’s a mistranslation. In theology, how something is ordered is an important concept. To change it to ‘directed’ makes it more active than ‘ordered’. The latter is an attribute rather than an action. The word “directed” implies someone or something doing the directing. “Wrongly ordered” is probably more precise than either “disordered” or “wrongly directed”. But I am afraid that there would be the same knee-jerk reaction to the use of the word “wrong”. How do you convey, clearly and without ambiguity, that something is wrong without using the word ‘wrong’?
It’s true that “disorder” has now come to primarily mean an illness. And that’s why official documents are still published in Latin since the meaning doesn’t change.
I agree that ‘wrongly ordered’ may be closer in the English language - ‘directed’ does not have to imply “activeness”, but I see your point. And of course it was not a mistranslation at the time, but that is why I described it as a de facto mistranslation - it causes widespread confusion among today’s readers.
As to knee jerk reactions, I think ‘disordered’ (especially when people then mistakenly go from there to ‘disorder’) is more prone to causing them than the presence of ‘wrongly’ would be. That said, ‘wrongly’ also carries connotations that are not present in ‘inordinatus’, so my attempt at a better translation has deficiencies too. Perhaps ‘incorrectly ordered’ would be better - it is as neutral as it gets, while still conveying the contents of the Latin word rather accurately.
But lastly, my point is not to avoid any and all knee jerk reactions - that is impossible. Some people will always knee jerk, be they conserative, liberal, straight, gay, Catholic, non-Catholic or anything else. However, we should avoid knee jerk reactions caused by misunderstandings. The idea that Catholicism sees homosexuality as a mental disorder is such a misunderstanding, common amongst liberals and conservatives alike. It creates unnecessary controversy.
Catholic teaching about homosexual acts should be presented as neutrally as possible - just the teaching, in its “purest” sense, minimally colored by culture or language. I have (upon enquiry - I truly do not see it as my business to “admonish” people, especially when they’re not even Catholic) explained Catholic teaching on sexuality this way to people, gay as well as straight, just quoting exactly what is contained in the Catechism, together with an explanation of the basics of teleology, since our teaching on sexual morality truly does not make sense without it.
I have yet to receive a knee jerk reaction. On the contrary, I’ve been told that this was less harsh than they expected, and that it makes sense in the framework of teleology as presented. They may not agree with the teleological premises, but they do understand them. Additionally, some have been positively surprised as well as slightly perplexed that they didn’t receive an “it’s in the Bible, thus it is so” reply.
I’m trailing off here, but to conclude, I do not think Catholic teaching by necessity has to produce knee jerk reactions in most people. Of course, a heavily ideologized person will knee jerk to anything that does not fit their conceptions. But most people are not like that - gay or not.
Lastly, I agree about the Latin. Of course documents such as the Catechism have to be translated, but this is one of many reasons I am skeptical to the vernacular liturgical experiment of the modern Latin Church. If anything, we should follow the example of the Eastern rites, which have always been translated to more archaic versions of the vernacular, so as to avoid constantly fleeting meanings and connotations. Or, perhaps we don’t even have to look as far as to the East, but simply to the Anglican Use.
But now I’m trailing off, so it’s time for bed
