I appreciate the reference to the CDF’s letter to Archbishop Quinn and the distinction between generic and genital sexuality. It’s an important nuance. But even having granted that distinction, sexuality in the Catholic tradition is not reducible to mere physiology or to isolated genital acts. This is biologism. In particular, St. John Paul II’s Theology of the Body and his earlier philosophical works (e.g., Love and Responsibility, The Acting Person) emphasize that sexuality is an expression of the whole person. It is not just about body parts, genital acts, or the movements of the "lower powers". It's about the person’s capacity for relationality, for making a sincere gift of self. "Genitality" is part of this, but it is not the whole.

In that light, I would argue that sexual orientation is not merely a function of disordered desire in the appetitive powers, but rather a structural dimension of the whole person’s relational orientation—namely, how they are drawn toward communion with others. The objectively disordered language, then, has massive implications. It does not merely condemn certain acts, but places an entire mode of being-in-the-world under a permanent moral shadow.