According to Cardinal Jean Claude Hollerich, Society of Jesus, synodality expert, made a member of the College of Cardinals by the man currently wearing papal white, President of the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Union (COMECE), General Rapporteur- Relator General of the Synod of Bishops, Professor of German, French and European studies and Vice-Rector for General and Student Affairs of the Sophia University in Tokyo, President of the Council of Bishops’ Conferences of Europe’s Commission for Youth, Member of the Catholic student fraternity, AV Edo-Rhenania zu Tokio and of AV Rheinstein zu Köln im CV, Member of the Pontifical Council for Culture on and Member of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue:
When asked, “How do you get around the Church’s teaching that homosexuality is sin?” Cardinal Jean Claude Hollerich replied:
“I believe that this is false. . . . But there is no homosexuality at all in the New Testament. There is only discussion of homosexual acts, which were to some extent pagan cultic acts. That was naturally forbidden. I believe it is time for us to make a revision in the foundation [Grundrevision: “ground revision,” or “foundation revision”] of the teaching.” And he said: “ . . .the way the Pope [i.e. the man currently wearing papal white] has expressed himself in the past [on homosexual actions and God making people this way] can lead to a change in doctrine. . . . I think it is time for a fundamental revision of doctrine.”
According to God, Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth:
“ Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” . . . But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door. The two men said to Lot, “Do you have anyone else here—sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the Lord against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it.” . . . Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, destroying all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land.” (Genesis 19).
“Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” (Leviticus 18:22). “If a man lies with a man as one lies with woman, both of them have done what is detestable.” (Leviticus 20:13).
“The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness . . . For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.” (Romans 1)
“Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Cor 6).
“We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.” (1 Tim 1).
According to Holy Mother Church, the one, true, holy, & apostolic Catholic Church of Jesus Christ:
“Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” 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.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2357).
“According to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God. This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of.” (Persona Humana, Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics, Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, December 29, 1975).
“At the same time the Congregation took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions. These were described as deprived of their essential and indispensable finality, as being “intrinsically disordered”, and able in no case to be approved of. . . In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.” (The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, October 1, 1986.).
“Sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. “Letter,” No. 3) and evokes moral concern.” (Some Considerations Concerning the Response to Proposed Legislation on the Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Persons, Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, July 22, 1992).
“But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase . . . .What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behavior of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well.” (Considerations Concerning Plans for the Legal Recognition of Unions between Homosexual Persons, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 3, 2003).
The 1975 document was wrong. “This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it,…”
Name another mortal sin which we are not personally responsible for or for wanting to do in the future or to decide isn’t even a sin. Imagine people using this same line of thinking for stealing, rape, etc. Of course today many people are forever condemned if they are against the favored “social justice” issues. Against forced covid vaccines? Fired from jobs, loss of friendships, condemned from the ambo at the highest levels of the Church.
Name another mortal sin which we are not personally responsible for or for wanting to do in the future or to decide isn’t even a sin.
You need to re-read the text quoted.
The Synodality Cardinal would have better luck redefining the distinct scientific natures of “waste track and birth canal”.
JFK I read that as saying that if a person has homosexual inclinations, that in itself is not sinful. Same as if someone has an urge to steal. Or lie. Or conmitt adultery….It only becomes sinful when we entertain the sin by following though with the action.
We’re all pre-disposed to a particular sin or temptation to some degree. Some people do infact suffer from homosexual urges or tendency. That’s their cross to bear. But, bear it they must, in order to remain in communion with God.
Oh….The Word of God can be so inconvenient. So..uhh..ridged.
Sodom and Gomorrah.
History lesson or history lost?
Apparently, objective truths have expiry dates.
I would absolutely never want to argue with the Catechism, and I’m a miniscule being unworthy of discussing anything of meaning. That said, the passage from the Catechism begins, “homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.” I think the English translation of that sentence doesn’t reflect the way the word is used today, and I think if that sentence were removed from this article’s section on Church teaching the section would be entirely consistent with common and theological usage as well as truthful. That’s the only nit I would pick. I think Guy did a great job of laying out the subtle teaching of the Church here. Barring some translation issues or misunderstanding on my part, I suspect that Cardinal Hollerich is trying to use the distinction between homosexual inclination and homosexual acts to imply that the Church teachings, as they stand, lack the subtlety they truly have.
I’ve been looking around and so far have not been able to find the original interview. But here the quotes from Cardinal Hollerich that I have been able to find on multiple sites:
1.) “So I believe that the sociological-scientific foundation of this teaching is no longer correct, what one formerly condemned was sodomy.
“One thought at that time that in the sperm of the man, the whole child was kept. And one has simply transferred this to homosexual men.
“But there is no homosexuality at all in the New Testament. There is only discussion of homosexual acts, which were to some extent pagan cultic acts. That was naturally forbidden. I believe it is time for us to make a revision in the basic foundation of the teaching.”
2.) “The change in civilization we are witnessing today is the greatest change since the invention of the wheel.
“The Church has always moved with the times and has always adapted. But one always had much more time to do that. Today we must be faster. Otherwise, we lose contact and can no more be understood.”
The only other significant quotes I can find relate to not firing homosexual employees just for being homosexual.
I can’t find anything that makes it explicit whether the cardinal is discussing inclinations only or actions. Certainly some of the time he is only talking about inclinations, such as in his talk about dealing with employees. But it is difficult to see how his discussion of medieval theories of sperm would have any relevance unless he was defending homosexual acts as well. Similarly talking about this being literally the biggest cultural revolution in all of recorded history also is difficult to reconcile with any interpretation but the cardinal saying that homosexual sex is fine.
Rudolph, you must have clicked “Post Comment” a few seconds after I did. I like the way you laid this out.
I’ve heard it argued more recently, that the push for increased acceptance of homosexuality as a lifestyle choice is linked to population control. Population control has always been linked to climate issues. The Vatican has explicitly been very vocal, under this papacy, in regards to climate issues. The current Vaticans concern with the climate/environment is because it is pushing for population control which can very successfully be assisted by creating a general acceptance of homosexuality as a lifestyle choice. This Hollerich seems to be prepping for that Agenda.
These wretched excuses for churchmen hate the Scriptures and everything in them. Reminding them of what the Bible says about the subject has never moved them, and never will. Treat them like the pagans that they are.
that the push for increased acceptance of homosexuality as a lifestyle choice is linked to population control. Population control has always been linked to climate issues.
Doubt it. This is all about the Lavender Mafia in the clergy, especially the Jesuits. Anything else to justify it is purely pretextual.
I think that the use of terms such as “homosexual” and “homosexuality” has proved to be a mistake, in that the use of the language of subjective psychological states that has largely been drawn from (or perhaps more accurately, foisted upon us from) secular psychology and sociology elides the necessary distinction between the disordered desire itself and the act, and in effect creates an alternate anthropology. The church texts cited above are correct in their conclusions; I likely have a tactical disagreement in that utilizing this sort of language in effect concedes the premises of orientation essentialism. In a piece from 2014 in First Things, Michael Hannon wrote:
“…within orientation essentialism, the distinction between heterosexuality and homosexuality is a construct that is dishonest about its identity as a construct. These classifications masquerade as natural categories, applicable to all people in all times and places according to the typical objects of their sexual desires (albeit with perhaps a few more options on offer for the more politically correct categorizers). Claiming to be not simply an accidental nineteenth-century invention but a timeless truth about human sexual nature, this framework puts on airs, deceiving those who adopt its labels into believing that such distinctions are worth far more than they really are.”
Near the conclusion he perceptively notes:
“The question is, once this sexual-orientation structure collapses, what will come to replace it: the queer theorists’ nihilistic anything-goes ethic, or the classical Christian view from which all of this is a departure, the view that takes the marital-procreative as its end and organizing principle, evaluating passions against nature rather than vice versa?
The role of the champion of Christian chastity today, I argue, is to dissociate the Church from the false absolutism of identity based upon erotic tendency, and to rediscover our own anthropological foundation for traditional moral maxims. If we do not wish to be swept away with modernity’s orientation essentialists, then we need to remind the world that our sexual ethics was never really at home in the modern framework anyway, and thus that our forsaking the framework need not lead to postmodern nihilistic libertinism. There is firmer ground to stand on in the classical Christian tradition. Indeed, it seems to me the only place left to stand.”
The whole thing is pretty good. https://www.firstthings.com/article/2014/03/against-heterosexuality
Really good article. There are two things I think the author left out, though, both of which supported the orientation-category thinking we’re just leaving behind now. One is that throughout history there is a set of personality traits that often go hand-in-hand with people with weak heterosexual inclination and strong heterosexual inclination. The psychologists of 150 years ago weren’t wholly imagining things. Secondly, there is often a visceral negative response to same-sex things, and while the article may be right that it’s being diminished, it is driven at least somewhat by an element of moral intuition or conscience.
We talk about how Newtonian physics was wrong but also counted as an expansion in understanding. I think this is similar.
There are infinite proscriptions against the sin of sodomy. There is none to support it. There is, literally, no debate.
From the Sacred Deposit of Faith ( via http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2015/10/03/the-practice-of-homosexuality-is-an-offence-to-god/ ):
“Catechism of the Council of Trent on the 6th Commandment:
In the Gospel, too, Christ the Lord says: From the heart come forth adulteries and fornications, which defile a man. The Apostle Paul expresses his detestation of this crime frequently, and in the strongest terms: This is the will of God, your sanctification, that you should abstain from fornication; Fly fornication; Keep not company with fornicators; Fornication, and an uncleanness and covetousness, let it not so much as be named among you; ” Neither fornicators nor adulterers, nor the effeminate nor sodomites shall possess the kingdom of God.
We find in the catechism of Saint Pius X the following,
“Q: Which are the sins that are said to cry to God for vengeance?
A: The sins that are said to cry to God for vengeance are these four: (1) Willful murder; (2) The sin of sodomy; (3) Oppression of the poor; (4) Defrauding laborers of their wages.” The Catechism of Saint Pius X, The Vices and Other Very Grievous Sins”
End quote
Again Tradcatholicpriest:
The clear teaching of the Bible, of the church fathers, and the deposit of faith which is handed to us through our tradition, is that Sodomy in all its forms is an abomination to God. It is a Sin that cries out to God for vengeance and all who live in such a manner will suffer the eternal hell fire.
In closing, we are living in times where people are desirous of having their ears tickled so that they can indulge in their wickedness. Their darkened minds twist everything that is Holy so that many people will go to Hell because they are of their father, the Devil.”
End quote
I normally don’t post pure extracts like this – but this topic and this perfect response from the “Trad Priest” seemed to call for a few excerpts.
Thank you everyone for reading and Deo Gratias for those who have commented.
Jason, enlarging on your insights: it is often difficult not to confer reality – “God made me this way” – and use without qualifcation certain words. It is difficult to always say “those who voluntarily engage in sexual intercourse and actions with those of the same sex”. God did not use the words “homosexual” and “homosexuality” in His Holy Scriptures. Keeping in mind that God alone can bring reality into existence by uttering a word [despite efforts of Jorge B, his masters and his minions], it is interesting to note that men invented these two words millennia after God spoke to us through His Holy Scriptures:
“The ‘Invention’ of Homosexuality-Are there ‘homosexual’ and ‘heterosexual’ people? Or are there simply people who are called ‘homosexual’ and ‘heterosexual’ by society?Esther K.H. Ng, Dec. 21, 2020; https://historyofyesterday.com/the-invention-of-homosexuality-55943ce37558 “The first use of ‘homosexuality’ in the English language
“Charles Gilbert Chaddock is credited with the ‘invention’ of homosexuality in the English language. As a translator of Krafft-Ebing’s Psychopathia sexualis, Chaddock created the term “homo-sexuality” in 1892 as the English counterpart to a German cognate that itself came about only twenty years earlier. The abstract noun “heterosexuality” was first recorded in 1900. Interestingly, both were used to denote an abnormal or aberrant sexual desire. While “homosexuality” was defined as a “morbid sexual passion for one of the same sex,” “heterosexuality” was similarly defined as “abnormal or perverted appetite toward the opposite sex.” In any case, a person’s sexual preference for one’s own sex had not been clearly distinguished from other forms of deviant sexual behavior before then. In fact, it was often deemed as just one of the many symptoms observed in those who suffered ‘sexual inversion’. These were typically the individuals who did not adhere to the appropriate behavior prescribed to their biological sex, i.e. non-conformity to one’s culturally-defined role. The creation of the term effectively delinked one’s sexual object choice from the larger umbrella of “deviant” gender behavior . . .”
Thank you everyone for reading and Deo Gratias for those who have commented. Jason, enlarging on your insights: God did not use the words “homosexual” and “homosexuality” in His Holy Scriptures. Keeping in mind that God alone can bring reality into existence by uttering a word, it is interesting to note that men invented these two words millennia after God spoke to us through His Holy Scriptures:
The ‘Invention’ of Homosexuality-Are there ‘homosexual’ and ‘heterosexual’ people? Or are there simply people who are called ‘homosexual’ and ‘heterosexual’ by society?Esther K.H. Ng, Dec. 21, 2020; https://historyofyesterday.com/the-invention-of-homosexuality-55943ce37558 “The first use of ‘homosexuality’ in the English language
“Charles Gilbert Chaddock is credited with the ‘invention’ of homosexuality in the English language. As a translator of Krafft-Ebing’s Psychopathia sexualis, Chaddock created the term “homo-sexuality” in 1892 as the English counterpart to a German cognate that itself came about only twenty years earlier. The abstract noun “heterosexuality” was first recorded in 1900. Interestingly, both were used to denote an abnormal or aberrant sexual desire. While “homosexuality” was defined as a “morbid sexual passion for one of the same sex,” “heterosexuality” was similarly defined as “abnormal or perverted appetite toward the opposite sex.” In any case, a person’s sexual preference for one’s own sex had not been clearly distinguished from other forms of deviant sexual behavior before then. In fact, it was often deemed as just one of the many symptoms observed in those who suffered ‘sexual inversion’. These were typically the individuals who did not adhere to the appropriate behavior prescribed to their biological sex, i.e. non-conformity to one’s culturally-defined role. The creation of the term effectively delinked one’s sexual object choice from the larger umbrella of “deviant” gender behavior . . .”
Dear Aqua, TY, as I hit POST COMMENT, your excellent comment appeared.
Dear All, My sincere apologies for getting impatient re: my comment above and hitting POST COMMENT twice.
Guy, Texas
Interesting that no one here mentioned the New Testament use of the word “homosexual” to translate the Greek word “catamite.” A “catamite” is a grown man who pays an underage boy for sex. Clearly, that bears no more resemblance to two consenting adult males in love having sex than an uncle raping his under age niece does to an adult heterosexual couple having sex. Nor does anyone make any attempt to articulate the objective harm (a pre-condition to sin) there is in same gender couples engaging in consensual sex. Even the church (like the mainstream medical community) accepts that being gay is neither chosen nor contagious. Whether they’re celibate or sexually active, they’re not going to produce children. So what’s the harm? The Cardinal is on to something.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Romans 1: 24-26
John wrote, “Nor does anyone make any attempt to articulate the objective harm (a pre-condition to sin) there is in same gender couples engaging in consensual sex.”
What kind of diabolical nonsense is this that you grease a homosexual’s skids to hell by approving of his activity? Do you know what homosexual behavior is? It’s sickening and disgusting. It spreads disease and filth and immorality. God made humanity male and female: Adam and Eve with complimentary genitalia, NOT Adam and Steve. People like you who normalize obscenity are what’s wrong with today’s society far more than even those who engage in such behavior. Donald quoted Romans 1:24-27 above, but the succeeding verse 32 applies to you (in fact, to any of us who have condoned sin of any sort at one time or another):
“Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.”
YOU are the approver. Note the penalty due to the approver. Fill up on that for a change.
Now let’s talk about your catamites for a minute. St. Paul makes clear in 1st Corinthians 6:9-10 that “…οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται…… βασιλείαν θεοῦ κληρονομήσουσιν.”
This literally means:
“…nor effeminate nor sodomites…Kingdom of God shall receive.”
St. Paul was as usual very precise. He used the term μαλακός to denote male receivers of penetration by males and the term ἀρσενοκοίτης to denote male givers of penetration to males. The English translations we get are sadly sanitized. Therefore, below is the entire excerpt of the relevant Scriptural text from 1st Corinthians 6:9-10 first in Greek, then in Latin, and finally from Young’s Literal Translation into English:
GREEK: ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν; μὴ πλανᾶσθε: οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται οὔτε κλέπται οὔτε πλεονέκται, οὐ μέθυσοι, οὐ λοίδοροι, οὐχ ἅρπαγες βασιλείαν θεοῦ κληρονομήσουσιν.
LATIN: An nescitis quia iniqui regnum Dei non possidebunt? Nolite errare: neque fornicarii neque idolis servientes neque adulteri neque molles neque masculorum concubitores neque fures neque avari, non ebriosi, non maledici, non rapaces regnum Dei possidebunt.
ENGLISH: Have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, the reign of God shall inherit.
Note the following:
οὔτε μαλακοὶ = neque molles = nor effeminate
οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται = neque masculorum concubitores = nor sodomites
βασιλείαν θεοῦ κληρονομήσουσιν = regnum Dei possidebunt = Kingdom [Reign] of God shall receive [possess, inherit]
Sacred Scripture cannot possibly be more clear than that. So stop trying to cover up the issue with discussion about catamites. “…οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται…… βασιλείαν θεοῦ κληρονομήσουσιν.”
!!!!!
PS, it was a Pentecostal preacher man who taught me Koine Greek when I was in high school, and a very patient Italian lady who taught me Latin. So don’t go down that road with me, buddy boy.
John, the “not producing children” thing is big. It’s the reason that, while there are passages in the OT and NT against homosexual acts, I don’t think we should lean on them too heavily for our arguments. The argument is in the nature of the act.
Everything in Jewish history was aimed at having a large, prosperous family. Adam and Eve. Noah. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The gravest warning Jesus gave was that people would say, “blessed are the barren”. For all of human history, to have children is considered a purpose, sometimes the purpose, of life (the exceptions being societies that were physically and morally dying out). Our purpose can’t be pleasure; in no other Christian context do we hold that our moral principle should be pleasure.
By your standard, it doesn’t harm anyone to think lustfully about a neighbor’s wife. It doesn’t produce children, and it doesn’t (at least not obviously) produce objective harm. But we know that’s wrong. And surely you’d admit that married heterosexual couples can use each other for sex in a selfish way? As for the cause of homosexual desire, I think we’ve all been pretty clear that we’re not calling the inclination a sin; it’s the action. It doesn’t matter what makes me, say, prone to anger, but it matters that I don’t indulge in it.
Clearly, that bears no more resemblance to two consenting adult males in love having sex
The mundane reality of male homosexuality is something you’ve elected to pretend you know nothing about.