I am fully aware of the Catechism’s perspective on this topic. I am also aware that the etymology of words from the original Greek scriptures have often been mis-interpreted by modern translations and have led to all matters of confusion.
Even the CCC (2357) admits this about homosexuality and it’s implications on gay marriage: " its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained" - as we discern and find inclusive and loving ways to respond to our gay brothers and sisters, we will I hope step into an explanation that is more broadly acceptable and aligned with the lived experience of so many Catholics.
First up - you didn’t answer my question in my post.
Secondly, if you are fully aware of the Catholic Church’s position on this topic, you’d know it has a Natural Law base. Natural Law underpins Catholicism, does it not? Yet it seems you wish to pull one little brick out of the wall that is a coherent and cogent philosophical doctrine. That’s never going to work, is it?
Thirdly, you have quoted the Catechism very selectively.
You forgot this bit -
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity.
And you gave an incomplete transcription. The full text of what you posted is this -
Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
Notice the reference to Natural Law and to the statements that homosexual acts are “of grave depravity” and “Under no circumstances can they e approved”. Yet, it seems you wish to subvert that doctrine by quoting selectively, by adding your own thoughts which are against catholic doctrine and, quite frankly, put forward in a disengenuous manner.
As for the misinterpretation of original Greek sources is concerned, I take it you are referring to St. Paul? If not, as a self labelled Catholic, you should be.
In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 he had this to say -
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
When you refer to the supposed ‘confusion’ over the etymology of the words used by St. Paul, you are, of course, referring to the use of the word “homosexual” in translations of his epistles. The word “homosexual” is a fairly recent concoction and was not in use in St. Paul’s day. However, he did use two words that scholars know referred to homosexual practices. The words were
malakoi and
arsenokoitai. The first word
malakoi can be traced all the way ack to Ancient Greece, where it was used perjoratively to describe the passive partner in homosexual sex. The Greek poet Aristophanes used it to mercilessly deride the passive same sex partner. The second word,
arsenokoitai is more problematic. It seems to be a noun coined by St. Paul, but could possibly be a word in common usage. Scholars have indicated that it most probably comes from the phrase
“meta arsenos koiten gynaikos”, which is used in the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) of Leviticus 20:13, which refers to *“Whoever lies with a man as with a woman” * “they have both done an abomination.”
St. Paul also lead a delegation to Jerusalem to meet with the Apostles concerning the spreading of the Gospels to gentiles and to consider what aspects of the old Law applied to Gentiles. The laws as they pertain to sexual immorality still apply.
A goodly portion of the misinterpretations that are to be found around the Internet are promulgated by those who would wish to subvert Catholic teaching on this subject. You have linked to a typical example.
