The church teaching is incoherent, on its own terms. That is first of all an observation, not a judgment. No one should be satisfied with it, both those who believe in the sinfulness of homosexual acts, and those who do not.
The teaching is premised on a distinction between the “being” or inner “inclination” of a homosexual person, and his “actions.” This distinction is untenable and cuts straight against the grain of all Christian tradition, which is committed to the intrinsic connection between the two. Any natural, given, being is meant to be realized, is ordered to fruition in shared action. Sin is a parasatism on being, not real being. The idea that a given “being” should be held forever in potentia is un-Christian.
Does the church say that homosexuality is a given state of being, or that it is a sinful state that should be undone?
Vox Novans are proud to point out that the former is the case. Homosexual inclinations, we are told, aren’t sinful, only homosexual acts. This is sophistry, chop-logic. Real inclinations are inseparable from acts. Even if they are not acted upon, real inclinations are nothing other than tendencies to act. So a tendency toward a sinful act is, ipso facto, sinful — there is no way around this. Inclinations are intrinsically, related to acts, even if the acts are unrealized; that is what inclinations are. An inclination to murder people is a sinful inclination, even if it is less sinful than the actual murder itself.
Yet the church says, clearly, that the inclination to homosexuality isn’t sinful.
It has to say this, because it recognizes that for whatever reason, homosexuals are not able to expunge themselves of these inclinations — these are part of their “being.” Thus the church rightly does not participate in fundamentalist “gay-cure” movement, which is a recipe for paranoia, alienation from God, and suicide.
So according to the church, homosexuality isn’t sinful — it’s just an inclination to sin.
Doesn’t make sense. Sorry. Doesn’t make sense. This teaching will not last.
A tendency to murder, to rage, to adultery, to any other sin you can name — such a tendency is sinful. It is sinful to the extent that we say that we should TRY TO OVERCOME THE TENDENCY. We do not assume that a murderer must, forever, harbor the desire to kill. We assume the tendencies are really and truly disordered and prey to the parasitism of evil, and that the tendencies can be corrected — that is, turned around — that is, we assume that the sinner can repent.
But the church precisely does NOT say this about gays. It does NOT say that the gay man or woman should attempt to overcome the inclination to perform sinful acts. It REFUSES to say this because it knows that — sometimes — the inclination CANNOT be undone, repented.
What the church itself is positing here is an inclination to sin that cannot be reached by repentance. This is in fact an insult to the love of Christ. If the inclination to sin cannot be turned around by repentance, it is NOT an inclination to sin. That is an absolute. Jesus saves.
The teaching of the evangelicals is thus MORE COHERENT than the Catholic ‘natural law’ teaching. If the inclination is an inclination to sin, then the inclination can be redeemed by being turned into the love of God. That means the inclination to homosexual acts, if it is sinful, should be possible to overcome.
If its NOT possible to overcome — and this is now what the church teaches — then it is impossible to see how it is sinful — how it should be possible to repent of it through the grace of Christ.
Let me add: of course there are inclinations to sin that do not need to be overcome, entirely, but directed properly. These are inclinations to acts that are not inherently or intrinsically sinful, but are sinful because of context. For example, the desire for sex outside of marriage. This inclination is not intrinsically sinful, but a good desire that has been misdirected, is out of place. So it is possible to redirect, control, and fulfill this inclination properly, in a non-sinful way, within marriage.
The church says, by contrast, that homosexual desire can never be acted upon.
This, again, is something that can ONLY be coherently be said about inclinations to intrinsic evil — which inclinations, because they are not substantial, because they lack real being, because they have nothing to do with goodness and being and love, can and should be overcome.
And, again, thank God, the church has already refused — and will continue to refuse — to see the inclination to homosexuality in this way — as an evil, sinful inclination that can and should be overcome.
So the only option will be for the church to acknowledge what it is already saying implicitly — that homosexual desire can be chastely fulfilled.
Source : http://www.patheos.com/blogs/voxnova/2008/07/18/the-vindication-of-humanae-vitae/857