chrysostim83–
I don’t think your post is reasonable.
The basic meaning of “homosexual inclination” is easy to intuit: an inclination to experiencing sexual attraction towards members of the same sex. Now, obviously, no one is claiming that we can perfectly describe this situation in all of its complexity and tie it up in a neat little box, and the Catechism isn’t stupid enough to try. Obviously, words like “inclination” and “sexual attraction” describe very complex realities and have undergone a number of extensions of their analogical meaning.
But we can still talk meaningfully about homosexual inclinations. I doubt you can provide for me, within the body of Church documents or without, a perfectly clear and comprehensive definition of words like “God,” “spirituality,” or “grace.” But we still talk meaningfully–very meaningfully–about those things; we can still pin down their basic definitions and intuit their broader meanings. The term “homosexual inclination” is no different in this respect; we understand its basic meaning and can talk about the reality it describes. There is nothing unreasonable about the Catechism’s statement here.
The term “objectively disordered” may not be defined specifically in connection with homosexuality in any Church documents, but if it is defined somewhere not specifically in connection with homosexuality but just in general, that definition still applies. What’s more, the Catechism doesn’t have to define every single term it uses to speak meaningfully, whether the term is used once or a thousand times.
“Objectively disordered” is not an obfuscating or impossible to understand term. “Objectively”–in its object, in the central reality of the thing itself. “Disordered”–not properly ordered, out of accord with the eternal law or with God’s intention. I agree that there is some level of ambiguity in the word “disordered”–some assume that it means medically or psychologically disordered, when it makes much more sense for it to mean spiritually disordered. But a word is not meaningless just because it is not perfectly precise–the Catechism says something clear and meaningful here.
Certainly, everything unjust should be avoided, and the Catechism has already said that. But since unjust things are not avoided an alarming portion of the time when it comes to gay men and women, surely it’s reasonable for the Church to specifically point out and emphasize that it’s prohibition against injustice applies to gay issues?
What’s more, the quote doesn’t just say to avoid unjust descriminations towards gay men and lesbians, but to avoid “every sign” of it. That’s a stronger statement: don’t just avoid unjust discrimination, but avoid any situation that might engender unjust discrimination and any perception of unjust discrimination in this particular case. That is a meaningful statement.
Certainly everyone is called to chastity, and the Catechism has already said that, but once again: isn’t it good for the Church to reiterate specifically that gay men and lesbians are called to chastity (and more than capable of attaining it), since that fact is missed an alarming portion of the time?
As for the call seeming more like a command: certainly, living chastely is not only a calling from God but also a moral imperative. Is it also a command? It is certainly a command from God. Is it also a command from the Church? Probably. This part of the Catechism doesn’t really address these questions; it just says that it is a call.
But the call to chastity that gay men and lesbians have could very well be a moral imperative and a command too, without being any less of a call. The point is that God personally invites gay men and lesbians to chastity, and gives them the grace to live in that virtue. Doesn’t he do that for everyone? Yes, but see two paragraphs above.
Is Christian perfection compatible with an inclination to experiencing sexual attractions towards members of the same sex?
Well, is any objectively disordered inclination compatible with true Christian perfection? Probably not, no; that’s a contradiction in terms, isn’t it? But is an objectively disordered inclination that one did not choose and probably is not capable of shedding compatible with a great life of holiness as far as the life of subjective holiness goes? Definitely. Is one who has such an inclination and does not shed it before his death capable of being saved? Of course!
My overall point is this: Church teaching on homosexuality is not absolutely all-encompassing and precise. Of course not; it’s a very complex issue, one that has required more focus this century than in any other, and one that receives some of its data from psychology (which is not the Church’s domain). But the Church does say a great deal on this subject, and what it does say is crystal clear and very pastoral.
