So, while I am offering here a corrective about understanding same-sex attraction, it is offered in hopes of further enhancing, rather than diminishing, their commendable service to others in Christ.That said, I think there are four problems with Selmys’ post: 1.
I see this as a major misunderstanding of temptation and concupiscence.
Here concupiscence refers to the wounded human nature’s inability to, interiorly, always keep our appetites and passions subordinated to our intellect and will.
As such, Selmys can’t really support the supposed “good” of this attraction by claiming it’s a participation in the communion of persons of “the All” of the human race, so to speak.
It’s only a reductive attraction to “the Some,” not “the All.” Selmys is unfortunately wrong to conclude that the “initial erotic impulse” of same-sex attraction can ever be considered “ordered” and worthy of being “willed.” Catholics need to stand fast in witness to the truth of God’s plan for us that sexual attraction exists to lead us to spouses—either a man’s bride, a woman’s bridegroom, or our eternal Bridegroom, Jesus Christ.
And this means that the commission is not making a distinction between ordered and disordered same-sex attractions: rather, like the Church’s Magisterium teaches, all such attractions are disordered. Selmys then invokes the example of Eve in the Genesis account of the fall.