U nadi poticanja daljnje teološke rasprave o temi homoseksualnosti, autor u članku nudi kritički osvrt na nedavno objavljenu analizu relevantnog dijela (br. 185-195) dokumenta Što je čovjek? Papinske biblijske komisije koju potpisuje Božidar Mrakovčić. U spomenutim brojevima dokument Papinske biblijske komisije nudi svoje viđenje vrednovanja homoseksualnosti u biblijskim tekstovima, koje Mrakovčić, na temelju vrlo širokog uvida u literaturu, dijelom potvrđuje, a dijelom osporava. Teza je ovogčlanka da Mrakovčić ipak pritom previđa neke važne odrednice biblijsko-moralnoteološkog bavljenja temom homoseksualnosti, što se najjasnije očituje u zaključku njegove analize da je iz Biblije moguće iščitati jasnu osudu homoseksualnosti. Ovaj će članak, stoga, osporiti taj zaključak i to najprije upućujući na potrebu preciznijeg određenja predmeta rasprave, a potom ukazujući na propuste Mrakovčićeve analize biblijskih tekstova kao i na neopravdanost implikacija njegove analize pri suvremenom moralno-teološkom vrednovanju homoseksualnosti na koje spomenuti autor ukazuje. In the hope of stirring a further theological discussion on the topic of homosexuality, the author offers in this article a critical response to a recently published analysis of a relevant part (nn. 185-195) of the document What is Man? of the Pontifical Biblical Commission that has been published by Božidar Mrakovčić. In these numbers, the document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission offers its view of how homosexuality has been evaluated in biblical texts, which is partially confirmed and partially disputed by Mrakovčić on the basis of a very wide insight into the current literature on the topic. The thesis of this article is that Mrakovčić, nevertheless, misses some crucial determinants of the biblical-moral-theological dealing with the topic of homosexuality, which is most clearly reflected in the conclusion of his analysis that one can read a clear condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible. This article will, therefore, dispute the aforementioned conclusion by, first, pointing out the need to specify the object of discussion more precisely; second, by indicating short-comings of Mrakovčić’s analysis of the relevant biblical texts; and, finally, by arguing that the implications Mrakovčić draws from his analysis for the contemporary moral-theological evaluation of homosexuality are unwarranted.