How about let's look at what was said:
2357 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, 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. 2358 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. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. 2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
Now, short of dividing the above letters into columns and rows and playing word search where diagonal, bacward, horizontal and vertical scoring is possible - Would you mind pointing out where the phrase "intrinsically Evil" appears - anywhere in the above?
One finds not the exact phrase, but the idea. What would you call something that is "grave depravity," "intrinsically disorderd," "contrary to the natural law," that under "no circumstances can be approved of"?
Well? Do me one better. Name me something that is a violation of the natural law that is NOT evil.
Why would you read this, other than having a black heart where the Catholic Church is concerned, and believe this is an APPROVAL of such behavior or lifestyles surrounding it? Do you think that since the Catechism doesn't explicitly forbid adulterous "lifestyles" that it would approve of one surrounding himself in the trappings of a fornication "lifestyle" as long as he didn't actually fornicate? Do you?
Secondly, chastity: 1. Virginity 2. Virtuousness 3. Celibacy. Right out of the dictionary. So, please honor us with the official Catholic version of the word for our Catholic dictionary of terms as it appears your redefinition of the language has bearing on what you think you're saying.
I will in time expose for you the full meaning. But I believe you have stumbled upon an answer for yourself.
The Church calls all homosexuals to a life of chastity, which you have provided a definition of which includes the idea of "virtuousness."
I would hope that your idea of "virtuousness" does not include the idea of living a homosexual "lifestyle," while avoiding the actual acts. Now why do you think the Catholic call to virtuousness is any different from your own idea?
SD
We are still talking about certain "acts" not the lifestyle. It's an out. The Catechism tap dances all around it; but, it does not call Homosexuality sin. It just says that some things homos do are sins. They say the acts can't be approved of, not the lifestyle. they say the certain acts are contrary, not the lifestyle. This is where the argument started with a single question. "How is it defined - as a sin, or a less than acceptable lifestyle.
Men flying is contrary to natural law; but, it happens and I don't think it is sinful in the least. Bowels can be disordered, it doesn't make it a sin, though one could laughingly consider it such at times. As I was saying before, the RCC could have made a plain statement that was unequivocal, and they did not - choosing rather to couch the language in such a way as to argue both sides. It was your side that came raging out saying Homosexuality is not a sin when the topic was broached. Not just one person; but, several. And in the midst of that we find the Catechism that won't even call it sin. Thus what we are left with is a bunch of Catholics that argue it biblically is not a sin while at the same time arguing that the Catholic church Teaches that it is - though they don't say it and don't really come close to it. If it's taught to be a sin, on what is that based and why are the catholics here saying it is not? Hmm? Can't have it both ways; but, that is exactly the state of affairs.