Other Eric:
Nowhere does the Church teach that the orientation isn’t chosen. The definitive English version of the Catechism removed the language that said it was.
Please read my response more carefully, Eric. I said that the orientation is *“not necessarily chosen or desired.” *That word “necessarily” is an important qualifier. Certainly, it is possible that someone could
choose to experiment with homosexual activity, become addicted to it, and develop an orientation, much like an alcoholic can become an alcoholic in a similar manner. But there is a difference between acknowledging a theoretical possibility and emphasizing that for the vast majority of homosexuals, such a theoretical possibility does not match their experience. The second edition of the Catechism, to which you refer states:
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 (CCC 2358, 2nd edition).
I submit that this language implies that the orientation is, as I said originally,
“not necessarily chosen or desired.”
Other Eric said:
[L]
imiting the sinful character to the act is too benign an interpretation of Catholic teaching. I will not make exceptions to the character of mortal sin for the homosexual to excuse his own choice to be that way. This is a perverse interpretation of Church teaching. In no other context does the Church excuse a man from doing what is right and ordering his mind and personal nature to conform with the ultimate truth because it is difficult. The Church requires the full assent of the will and the mind to the natural order instituted by the Creator. This means an unreserved heterosexuality. To say otherwise is just an attempt to lower the bar for the homosexual in the interests of “diversity.”
It is a matter of Catholic moral theology that there is a difference between feelings and the will. Because of concupiscence, which the Church specifically states is not “in itself an offense” (CCC 2515, 2nd edition), a man often does not choose the desire or inclination toward sin (any sin). He may be assaulted by it through the desires of the flesh, but does not sin unless he gives consent of the will to it. That is why a homosexual orientation is
not necessarily sinful. It is a particular objective disorder that inclines a man to desire homosexual activity, but if he does not commit that activity then he is not guilty of that sin.
Analogously, let’s say that a person is tempted to lying or stealing. If he resists the temptation to lie or to steal, could we justly say that person has sinned? Should we call that person a liar or a thief? In like manner, a person who resists homosexual temptations may be inclined to be tempted by homosexual desire, but he has not committed sin (and really shouldn’t be called a homosexual, but that is another argument for another day).
Other Eric:
To advise anyone towards Courage is dubious counsel. It is an organization that encourages same-sex attracted men and women to form personal and intimate relations with each other under the guise of doing so without acting out sexually. It makes a mockery out of avoiding the near occasion of sin.
Setting aside the personal accusations against the individuals you named since I do not have the time to research the accusations or the means to contact those individuals to ask for their side of the story, I’ll just focus on your concern about Courage. Courage has been endorsed by the Pontifical Council for the Family. Alfonso Cardinal Lopez Trujillo stated:
This Pontifical Council for the Family supports the organization called Courage which was founded by Father John Harvey, OSFS, for helping homosexual persons to live in accordance with the laws of God and the teaching of his Church.
If the organization is endorsed by a Vatican pontifical council, then I believe it to be safe to recommend the organization to men and women struggling with same-sex attraction.
