The Catechism says homosexual “acts” in the plural. “It” is singular. “They” would be plural and is not limited to personal pronouns.
Chipper, you’re having difficulties identifying the correct antecendents. Grammatically speaking, the Catechism is not contradicting itself. Homosexual acts cannot be approved. Homosexual persons must not be unjustly discriminated against. That’s all that is being said. The persons must be accepted, loved, etc like any other sinner. The acts are objectively sinful, immoral and like all immoral actions must be condemned. At the same time we should accept where people are in their spiritual lives. I treat homosexuals the same way that I treat people who cohabitate before marriage, or who commit fornication, or who gossip a lot, or are very judgmental or racist and even bigotted. I strive to treat everyone I meet with love and respect. This does not mean that I endorse racism or bigotry. it does not mean that I endorse gossipping. It does not mean that I fornication or cohabitation. It means that we can NEVER allow other people’s bad behaviors to rationalize our bad behavior toward those individuals.
The homosexual agenda, or even the secular culture itself does not embrace this Christian approach. Their only solution to treating people with respect is to believe someone has not done anything wrong or that whatever they have done wrong is very minor (like stealing a penny from a millionaire). They have to choose sides about who they treat well. They side with the homosexuals and then spill out hatred and resentment toward “homophobes” and “bigots.”
I’m not saying unjust discrimination doesn’t happen among those who recognize homosexual acts to be sinful. What I am saying is that it is human nature to pick sides and that Christ challenges us to love the sinner, to pray for those who persecute us and to love our enemies. I was told as a child that loving your enemies meant you’d have no enemies. That’s not true. Christ isn’t saying we won’t have enemies. It is rather that we are not merely called to love those who love us, but to love those who hate us, who are offended at us, and who even think we hate them because we reject their sin.
I have lost friends who were homosexual who saw how much I treated them with respect and simply assummed I approved of their behavior. That was until I wouldn’t take part in things to endorse that behavior. Suddenly I was interogated about my stance, tried to affirm that I still valued them and in the end, they ended the friendship because they could not tolerate that I saw what they did as wrong. However, there are other homosexuals I’ve met who get along with me and respect our disagreements. In fact, my brother-in-law’s mother is homosexual. He loves his mother dearly and she knows this. He respects her so much! Yet he is very vocal about his stance against homosexual marriage and his faithfulness to Church teaching. Any time someone starts attacking him as being a disrespectful bigot, he mentions his mom and makes a profound statement about how no one can tell him that he doesn’t love his mother. I’ve never seen her angry at him for his stance. She knows very well that her son loves her.
That ultimately is what the Church is saying how we should behave.
It is not discriminatory to disapprove of behavior. It is discriminatory to treat those whose behavior you disapprove in a different manner than those whose behavior you approve.
You really need to listen when we urge you to read more carefully. The above passage refers to “every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights.”
The right to have one’s way all the time is not a basic human right. There is no ambiguity.
You don’t seem to realize this passage’s necessity. Many individuals with predominant same-sex attraction really do face hostility, ridicule, and abuse. “Gay marriage” activists may attempt to conflate such treatment with the perfectly rational positions of their political adversaries, but we mustn’t let them get away with that, Chipper.
Refusing to change the definition of a basic social structure to suit them is not discrimination “in fundamental personal rights.” Yes, yes, I know they claim it is, but eliminating a passage like 1935 from the Catechism is probably the worst solution possible.
No, you can’t honestly walk away with that understanding. Radical activists know damn well that the Catholic Church does not approve of homosexuality, and if they choose to obfuscate the Catechism’s meaning, that’s a kind of dishonesty on which we need to call them out.
Eliminating the part of the Catechism that establishes that human rights belong to everyone is not the answer. Might that make a few additional rhetorical steps and arguments necessary because of those who are willing to twist the Catechism’s meaning? Yes. But it’s worth it, because paragraph 1935 is very important. If the additional efforts required by it seem too troublesome or complicated to you, just get out of the way and let us do it.
You can’t really think the Catechism should not claim equal rights for all humans… can you?