“Yet, the document did not use the word “sin” once.”
Really? “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.”
So you were wrong. It said “sin” when you denied it and document clearly refers to “an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder”.
I saw the quote in an article on the subject.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3215644/posts
CNA/EWTN article
3rd paragraph:
After the issuance of the midterm report, the synod fathers raised their concern in 41 free interventions, which highlighted the absence of the word sin, the absence of the Gospel of Family, and some perhaps naive sentences of the document which could be subject to misinterpretation.
.................................
But then maybe CNA and EWTN are the ones that were “so wrong”?
....................................
It appears that you two are speaking (writing) of two different documents. The “midterm document” doesn’t mention sin. The 1986 document from the CDF, which is quoted in the article of this thread, does mention sin.