` :::Sorry.  This discussion isn't about improving some sentence.  It is about reporting what the document Homosexualitatis problema says.  As you stated at the beginning, ``The document clearly says 'In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable.' Quote the document directly. Add reliable and notable opinions.`` :::The document mentions ``deliberate choice`` only in relation to the origin of homosexual orientation.  It says nothing of deliberate choice in relation to homosexual behaviour.  It says nothing about any particular ``when ...`` circumstances that make behaviour a deliberate choice.  It just says that the sexual behaviour of homosexuals is not always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. :::We all make many choices that are not deliberate choices, we make many choices without reflection, without even adverting to the fact of making a choice.  The culpability or merit of our choices varies not only according to the gravity of the matter, but also according to the deliberateness of our choices.  According as a choice is more, or less, or not at all deliberate, the culpability or merit is greater, or less, or null.  You say: ``When it isn't compulsive, it is a result of choice.``  To the extent that behaviour is not compulsive, to that extent behaviour is a result of choice, a choice that may be to a greater or less extent or not at all deliberate and thus culpable or meritorious.  The extent of compulsion can vary.  If it is total, then there is no choice, deliberate or not, and there is no culpability or merit.  If it is not total, the freedom of choice is to that extent limited, but the culpability or merit can still be greater, less, or null.  What the document says is that the sexual behaviour of homosexuals is not always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable.  The document does not exclude the view that their sexual behaviour is sometimes totally compulsive and therefore inculpable.  The document also does not exclude the view that their sexual behaviour is always partially compulsive and therefore less than totally culpable. :::The document does not say: ``When homosexual activity is the result of deliberate choice, it is not made inculpable by natural sexual orientation.``  At best, that is an original-research conclusion from what it says. :::The document says: ``It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice``.  The secondary source that illustrates what the document says of the homosexual tendency by using the analogy of kleptomania says ``no one makes himself a kleptomaniac, and no one really wants to be one``.  The document says ``circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable.``  The secondary source illustrates what the document says: ``the more compulsive the disorder, the more reduced is the moral culpability for one's actions. Yet we would never say that kleptomaniacs should be allowed to steal at will``. :::What is wrong with the following summaries of what Homosexualitatis problema says on the question, all of which Roscelese has rejected? :::``The letter said that circumstances can reduce or remove an individual's culpability and can also increase it, but that homosexual sexual activity is not always and completely compulsive for homosexual persons.`` :::``Circumstances, the letter said, can diminish or eliminate an individual's culpability, and can also augment it, but it rejected the idea that homosexual activity is always totally compulsive and therefore inculpable for a homosexual person.`` :::``The letter rejects the idea that homosexual activity is always totally compulsive and therefore inculpable for a homosexual person, while also stating that circumstances can diminish or eliminate or also augment an individual's culpability.`` :::Are these not far more faithful to what the document actually says than the meandering original-research ``The letter said that, when homosexual activity is the result of deliberate choice, it is not made inculpable by natural sexual orientation, contradicting the idea that natural orientation rendered it totally inculpable``?`