Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

UPDATED: Is the Vatican Tinkering With the Online Catechism to Remove Catholic Teaching on Homosexuality?

PLEASE NOTE: This post has been updated (see below). After further digging, it looks like the language we found was from the 1994 Catechism. We’ve updated our story. But why is a 24-year-old version of the Catechism that needed to be updated for theological clarity still on the Vatican servers and publicly accessible?

A version of the Vatican’s online Catechism removes the language about homosexual inclinations being “objectively disordered” & replaces with language about “choice”.

We were warned this was coming. Now it looks like it may already be underway.

In a unlisted URL, there have been changes made to CCC paragraph 2358 — removing the words “intrinsically disordered” from the Church’s teaching on homosexual inclinations. This is what the two look like side by side. The changed version is on top, the original on the bottom:

In light of recent warnings about exactly this kind of attack on the Catechism, is the Vatican preparing to take this version of the Catechism live? See the video below for the full explanation of where to find this on the Vatican website:

Background links:

UPDATE: On Twitter, Michael Giedraitis says that this language — “they do not choose their inclination — appeared in the original 1994 version of the Catechism.

I have a copy of the 1994 Catechism, but it’s in storage on the other side of the country. If this is so, why is it still online? Are these arguments taking us full circle?

UPDATE 2: More digging. Multiple people with copies of the 1994 Catechism now confirming the above. And this 2005 article from the Los Angeles Times notes the change:

Look up “homosexuality” in the English version of the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” and you will read that people with “homosexual tendencies” must be accepted with “respect, compassion and sensitivity.” While they are “called to chastity,” they “can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.”

If the reports are true and the church is about to bar even celibate homosexuals from ordination as priests, then the position would seem to be that homosexuals can attain Christian perfection if they remain chaste but cannot aspire to the priesthood — which for many Catholics is the epitome of Christian perfection.

That isn’t the only incongruity. The 1994 edition of the catechism says: “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial.” That seems to align the church with the conventional psychological wisdom that sexual orientation is inborn, or at least established early in life, and is, in either case, resistant to change.

Not so fast. Conservative Catholics point to the fact that a 1997 revision in the catechism replaces the reference to a lack of choice with phrasing that is more equivocal. The revised version says: “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.”

Where does this leave us?

Is there really a 24-year-old web page of an old version of the Catechism still sitting there on the server? With better formatting than the current one? It seems so.

I was 16 when that version of the Catechism was published. 19 when it was amended. This is, to the best of my knowledge. the first time I’m seeing that language. For Catholics like me, what is old appears new again.

Interestingly, in 1997, the Catechism was also updated to include more restrictive language about the death penalty:

The 1992 edition of the catechism allowed for the death penalty in some cases, saying, “Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.” However, following public outcry, a 1997 update to the catechism — spearheaded by the pope as well as by his top aide Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, later to become Pope Benedict XVI — clarified that the death penalty should be permissible only in very rare cases.

The 1997 version of the catechism now reads: “Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means. … [In today’s society], the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

The word is that Pope Francis wants to change the Catechism again on the death penalty. And as the report from NBQ last month indicated:

They have also been sharpening their weapons on this strategy: drawing their inspiration from the “revision” of the Catechism proposed by Pope Francis on the death penalty and his pronouncements about the past concerning [the teaching of the Church about] the abolition of slavery. Arguments which are completely different, but useful here to justify a method of dismantling [the Catechism] that can now be useful for the homo-erotic cause.

Although some oddities yet remain, it appears that this was a false alarm, and the Catechism is not being tinkered with — quite yet. But that doesn’t mean that such a change isn’t coming.

This post has been updated.

253 thoughts on “UPDATED: Is the Vatican Tinkering With the Online Catechism to Remove Catholic Teaching on Homosexuality?”

  1. This reporting is correct. Great work Steve. If we google “ccc 2358” the first two results are Vatican Links. The first link is the correct teaching, the second link is the “new paradigm”. Seems like The modernists are gearing up for their next assault at the upcoming “Synod of Young People.” These “New Theologians” have been seduced and enslaved by their own clever semantics. They are intoxicated by their own intellects and have become prisoners of their own poisoned minds. Wormwood is what they have become. May The Virgin Most Powerful crush their heresies and obtain for them, the gifts of repentance and conversion to the Authentic and Traditional Catholic Faith.

  2. The “vatican” can (and evidently will) change any part of the faith they want, I am a Catholic, I’m not a vaticanist. Hey, maybe they should change their name to the the 7th day advaticanists. I’ll show myself out.

  3. If that truly is the translation from the 1994 Catechism, it illustrates the truth that Catechisms in and of themselves are not infallible. Whether or not homosexual attraction is chosen is not doctrine. There is no tradition which states that homosexuality is or is not chosen. What is certain, is that homosexual inclination is disordered. What is also certain is that homosexuality is a consequence of Original Sin, as are all sinful desires.

    • What happens if I were to say that I didn’t believe in homosexuality? I believe there are men who commit impure acts with other men and women who do the same. Just men and women like any others who choose perversion. Maybe something horrible happened to them or they were rejected or unloved or rebellious, but they choose. Serial killers often have something horrible happen to them or were rejected or unloved and they are still men who choose to murder by their free will. Someone chooses sodomy. The Catechism was a crock in it’s untinkered with form. So what, that’s dissenting from Catholic teaching now? Wow.

      • Good points Melanie. The growing persecution of Catholics who follow Traditional and Authentic Catholicism is ever growing. To hold that which The Church has always and everywhere taught is to now be slandered as a dissenter. Black is white. Up is down. Unchanging doctrine is always changing. Anti-creation replaces Creation.

      • What happens?

        Well, you get a beer from me if I’m in arm’s reach.

        I don’t buy it either.

        As you say exactly, no matter WHAT your tendency, you CHOOSE to act on those tendencies, and those acts are thus manifest choices.

        What else can this passage be than seeds of perversion planted in the CCC by fans of buttsex?

        • Yes and this is exactly the kind of ground that otherwise sane and correct people cede when they are confronted with totally wrong. OH, well you’re a homo so if you are even are capable of the heroic feat of not taking it up the ***, you will take a seat in the highest rung of Heaven because of what you’ve overcome to not act on this strong desire for sodomy. Now this other schmuck who just worked his butt off to raise his family and didn’t even cheat on his wife, who was a woman, well we’ll pray his time in purgatory isn’t too long. I live in an alternate universe, I swear. Father Z just had an article today that ceded what a heroic feat it was for homos to not commit unspeakable sex acts. Whatever. They’re going to put me in jail or kill me someday.

          • What else explains this than a priesthood absolutely permeated by sodomy and sodomy supporters?

            And if the priesthood is in fact permeated by same, how can priests and bishops not be aware of it and what are they doing to purge the Church of those who are active enemies of her teaching? A priest friend of mine told me that between the mid-70’s to mid-90’s the powers-that-be actively recruited homosexuals to the priesthood, and thus many bishops today must be homosexual and certainly KNOW those who are among the clergy.

            “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” Luke 14:26

          • Yeah, about your priest friend’s comment, I m reading Michael Rose’ book which mentions a handfull of seminaries where that looks to be true. Complete with today’s language (homophobe, rigid, fundamentalist)all being used. It certainly explains how such a powerful high placed lobby exists today in the CC.

          • I just read the article of Fr. Z. you are referring to.

            Sins of the flesh are the greatest gateway to hell as Our Lady of Fatima stated and Fr. Z is missing a HUGE point here about those who self identify as SSA and remain chaste. For the problem is that those who ” self identify” with attractions to the same sex, make this component a very big part of their SELF IDENTITY and that is a problem. There is no hero award for not acting upon abdominal thoughts or desires.
            Too many of them in the Church! And most priests know it and have to try to rectify this is some illogical manner.

            I used to read him. Haven’t for a awhile…… I know why.

          • This puts paid to me on him as well. I have to believe there is some conflict there.

            It is indeed the IDENTIFYING that is at the core of the problem as much as the acts.

            What if a person {priest?} goes on the public record identifying himself as a white-supremacist but he hasn’t lynched anyone or actually donned the pointy hat in a while…think priests and prelates won’t jump that guy like a cat on a rat?

            I’m telling you, nothing makes sense than that the priesthood is PERMEATED with faggots and those who can be blackmailed with sodomy.

          • Yes, and I think also the problem is that so many priests who are good guys,
            were surrounded by it on so many different levels and were rendered helpless to the culture of homosexuality.

            And you know what happens when helplessness sets in under severe circumstances?
            The Stockholm Syndrome can take root, causing these good priests to identify with the homosexual priests in an EMPATHETIC way, i.e. heroes for not acting upon their perversion, a constant drum role to defend and protect their rights SPECIFICALLY, praising their chastity while denying the abomination of the desire which so often becomes an obsession, and etc. etc. etc.

            Many priests ( good men) were rendered so helpless as homosexuality within the priesthood and hierarchy grew by leaps and bounds. Either leave or learn to
            understand and be empathetic with homosexuals so as to tolerate the unbearable circumstances.

          • Absolutely. These guys aren’t monsters with horns. Many are very kind, funny, lovable and likeable. And if the gay club let the straight guys stay in the club, I’m sure there was a bit of Stockholm Syndrome, a strange sort of gratitude for their allowance. The whole situation is a nightmare, I can’t imagine how to repair for this.

          • ” I can’t imagine how to repair for this.”

            There isn’t any.

            At this point in the history of the Church, there is no structural, human fix.

            The Church at present acts as an Italian branch office of the Anglican Communion and the orthodox are either legitimately impotent or by choice offering no particular fight. It is a time of simple, painful, mind-wrenching faith.

            And somehow we MUST act with charity in the spreading of and living the Gospel of our Blessed Lord while giving not an inch to the Christ-murderers who seek to destroy the Church.

          • I homeschool my children, desperately hoping to raise them Catholic and it is a big sacrifice for our family. I hate to admit it, it’s awful, but outside my very own family I would have no idea anymore how to go about spreading the Gospel. I used to, not like an evangelist but normal conversation. Now, everything I believe is contradicted by the Church Herself, so I just wouldn’t. And this was the case all along, I just hadn’t realized until recent years.

          • You are to be commended!!!

            At risk of playing games with words, I have to keep reminding myself that the Church is indefectible and infallible. But so many of her leaders and members are not only neither of those, but are actively seeking her destruction. Thus we can never blame or attack “the Church” but we can hold her leaders accountable for what they do or don’t do in the performance of their duty.

            And at the same time we must live lives reflecting the charity, joy and justice of our Lord and Savior. This is a tough challenge,…in fact, so tough we cannot do it alone, but only with the help and power of Jesus.

          • I wrote that very poorly. It’s sometimes difficult for me to properly word the distinction between the current teaching coming from the Catechism, the priests, and the bishops from the Church without saying something very inflammatory and I failed to do that in my above comment. I love the indefectible Church founded by Jesus Christ and I inadvertently disparaged Her. That was horrible and I’ll be in Confession this week. See, and that’s why mostly, I just try not to discuss it out in the wide world.

          • This means that we, the faithful ones lives in times when is defending the Truth (apologetical works) much more obligated to us than just simple preaching the Truth (Gospel).
            Not everyone can do that easily in the manner of strong and accurately wording. But there are other ways too. As we know, such as prayers, penance, doing and living the Catholic Faith as it must be done and lived.
            I am very happy to hear you are doing homescholing your children. That’s a very good decision, and one of the ways to do important things on the right way.
            And that surely can be seen as a very important part of apologetic works.
            You are raising and preparing maybe the best apologetics of the future generation.
            May our Lord bless, lead and protect you and your family!

          • Not contradicted by the Church Melanie, only by interlopers and subversives who have infiltrated her. Don’t lose sight of that important distinction. Occupying real estate and walking around in an outfit does not a Catholic make.

          • This is true, but Matt, at this point the entire public face of the CC has been masked by the abuse scandal, but corruption, by the refusal to discipline its own for doctrinal and moral issues, etc, etc.

            We parse the words theologically and for good reason, but the world cannot be expected to; THAT is why causing scandal is so grave a sin. Putting it personally, so many of my friends and family {Protestant all} find the Catholic Church wholly repulsive, and I cannot blame them for that. I can try my best to educate them, but I cannot blame them.

            And now we see higher and higher level Church documents diverging from past teaching. SOMETHING has to change here for the better, or the Church ceases to have any credibility at all.

          • RE the deleted post. I know. I wasn’t criticizing you, just making a point in general. I agree. You are stating exactly what I have been saying for a long time and many Catholics plug their ears and refuse to hear it.

            The public face of the Church does not display PRACTICAL unity in doctrine. This is a monstrous catastrophe.

            I converted and little by little have seen the rift that so many others see, but overall, many don’t want to admit it.

            What else can this be but the great apostasy? The Protestants left the true faith 500 years ago and now the same forces that tempted them away have drawn away many in the Church to form what you say, an anti-Church w/in the Church. This is the internal schism Bishop Schneider refers to.

          • Bingo! How can this not be exactly what has happened? ‘Good Bye, Good Men’ spelled this out pretty much, where the good priests had to ‘go along to get along’ and had to ‘pretend’ to buy into the homosex that surrounded them in the seminaries. Their goal, I believe, was to just ‘get through’ what they had to get through, and once they were ordained, they planned to minister according to orthodox Christianity. The problem they didn’t foresee was the monumental scope Church wide of the problem, and how to navigate the muddy waters that surrounded them…..pretty much on all sides. Some of them were able to miraculously, and by the grace of God ended up in a Diocese with a good Bishop, but then a good number of them were not. This is exactly what you see going on here.

          • That is why I minimized my contact with Vatican II priests after getting the hell away from my seminarian program.

          • Yes and there is/was the added pressure on priests that are not tempted by this vice perhaps, to be tempted by intellectual pride, or fear of being perceived as intellectually unsophisticated. Watch the 80’s pop song “It’s a sin” by the Pet Shop Boys.

          • And his opinion ranks just as high as the opinion of a priest posting on the internet.

            And not to be graphic, but there is a subtle attack on heterosexuality and the reality of masculine drives themselves going on here, in his piece and everywhere this whole “Catholic” “respect and compassion for sodomites” BS gets discussed.

            Maybe Father Z drinks to much estrogen-infused 2% milk form plastic jugs or maybe he speaks for the supposedly testosterone-starved current generation, but has he forgotten the intense sex drive men have {used to have????} toward WOMEN?

            Like a 20 year old buck steering clear of a hot horny college chick isn’t a demonstration of supernatural grace worthy of a Greenbriar-sized mansion in heaven????? No, HOMOSEXUALS are “worthy” of some sort of elevated status by remaining continent and keeping themselves from wholly unnatural acts of monstrous evil?

            I am sick of this whole argument.

            Maybe “Father Z” can’t relate, but I reckon there are a few fellows left around this site even who can.

          • I have been sick of this whole argument for a very, very long time as well.

            The problem is that the Church hierarchy and many, many priests do not view homosexuality as a grave, grave abomination. Let’s be honest about it.
            For if they did, these recent Catechisms would not give so much weight to warning the faithful to be compassionate, not to discriminate and on and on and on!

            I received a few of these Catholic Catechisms from well meaning family members over the years. They are always seemed so syrupy, so filled with man and not filled with God! Does this make sense? They are gone from this household and the Roman Catechism resides.

            From these syrupy Catechisms, we have more “man centered” ministries in the Church, than God centered.
            For so many years, the faithful have been warned, confronted, screamed out, called every damn name under the sun for saying, ” NO to the acceptance of this great perversion. WE have lost many, many many good men from becoming priests, and thanks be to God, they had the COURAGE to say, ” NO”, I shall not hide my light while in seminary……..Oh yes, I had a priest tell me that, when I voiced concerns about a loved one into seminary. “” He can hide.” I am no Bible Scholar RodH, but I think that was condemned by our Lord. So, yes, this is the advise that is being given to young men now? ” Just be quiet, hide a bit, get through seminary and then you can be your own priest.” IT is so illogical, so fundamentally wrong in so many ways!!!

          • I haven’t read the Fr Z bit, but I seem to remember somewhere in the OT (I guess it would be) there’s a verse about eunuchs who keep chaste, getting a reward “greater than sons”.

            Ok, looked in up (online search). It’s in Isaiah, chapter 56:

            4 For thus says the LORD:
            To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths,
            who choose what pleases me,
            and who hold fast to my covenant,
            5 I will give them, in my house
            and within my walls, a monument and a name*
            Better than sons and daughters;
            an eternal name, which shall not be cut off, will I give them.

            I’ve no clue, but maybe Fr Z was somehow operating from these lines? I suppose you’d have to identify “eunuchs” with homosexuals, somehow or other.


          • Well, creating a eunuch removes the ability to perform and performance is NORMALLY associated with what is the natural inclination, so I think it does not address the issue Father Z suggests.

            I am personally just sick of the chaos that seems everywhere in the CC today.

          • Yeah, I mean nobody’s perfect and everyone will say something goofy from time to time that they might rethink given an opportunity, myself included, but…This homosexual nonsense is just crazy. It’s like the third rail and the teaching on this from the beginning is clear as can possibly be. Yet Kevin above says it can’t be controversial. “Born this way,”can’t be controversial. Get out. It shouldn’t be controversial is right because it is completely wrong and a lie from the pits of hell and we’ve got the Catechism selling us this and both sides of the spectrum from Father Z to Father Martin SJ. We’ve got serious problems.

          • God did not create homosexual desires. Satan did.

            Fr. Z. best deal with that resounding fact along with the other priests and bishops who seem to fear being classified as ” homophobic” for speaking the Truth.
            The DESIRES are not only disordered but are from the evil one as is all sin.

            And so now, the laity is made to “understand” and ” feel” this great understanding for such a grave, grave perversion. FOOLS! and foolish thinking abounds in this earthly Church.

          • But “buttsex” seems to equivocate that act with sticking the penis in other orifices. Sodomy is much more violent and depraved. Sodomy says it all. Did you notice how Apple will not anticipate the word no matter how many times you use it on your devices? The word makes demons recoil.

          • I noticed a few days ago that the soi-disant Legionnaire of Christ (one who is a Jim Martin fan-boy) who posted briefly here at 1P5 also recoiled at this (totally precise) word; he seemed to think it was somehow “hate speech”). Like all liberals he prefers obfuscating euphemisms like “same-sex,” “gay,” or “partner.” It’s the kind of effete language preferred by those who say, for example, that Emma Bonino is “one of Italy’s greats” instead of “an Italian mass murderess.”

      • St Peter Damian’s “Book of Gomorrah” is I think a must-read for all Catholic adults today. And of course then we have Pope St Pius V calling for the handing over of priest-sodomites to the civil authorities for severe punishment.

        • More recently, we have the 1961 Vatican instruction which most firmly banned homosexuals from ordination, without calling for their execution. Even this mild and common sense prohibition has been widely ignored.

          • That’s the entire problem with the Catholic Church.

            Essentially all housekeeping has collapsed, the roof hasn’t been maintained and leaks like a sieve, pipes have frozen and burst and no plumber has fixed them, the toilets have backed up and the family is now crapping in the closets, the hot water heater went out ages ago and folks are now boiling water on a fire made with smashed furniture in the center of the living room and the dog bit the neighbor’s little boy and nobody shot the dog.

            How we can say we have all these wonderful teachings and then not enforce them with canon law is absolutely beyond me.

            It increasingly smacks of fraud on the part of the entire clergy who have simply not exercised their authority in acts of responsible governance.

            Catholic Bishops are systematically dismantling the Church and it isn’t just Beroglio’s fault.
            If I ran my business like these guys have run the Church I’d be bankrupt and in jail.

            And deservedly so.

    • I think it was already discredited when they had to release that exhaustive “corrigenda”…..if you can get that much wrong off the bat, it doesn’t bode well for one’s confidence in the final product.

  4. Upon further reflection, I do remember seeing this text in an online version of the 1994 Catechism (translated from the provisional French) some time ago. But that doesn’t explain why it is still floating around on the Vatican website some 20-plus years after the promulgation of the corrected Latin and English versions.

    But this points out the danger in relying solely on the CCC as a reference and ignoring earlier catechisms. The so-called “sure norm for teaching the Faith” is hardly free from modernist influence.

  5. This unsettling incident makes me think of the novel “1984” by George Orwell. In it, the protagonist, Winston Smith, works for the Ministry of Truth and performs a most curious job. According to WIKI:

    “Winston’s job is to rewrite past newspaper articles, so the historical record always supports the Party’s agenda. The workers are told they are correcting misquotations, when they are actually writing false information in the place of fact. Minitrue also destroys all previous editions of revised work.”

    In our own increasingly-paperless society, in which we turn more and more to the easily-editable digital realm for information and fact-checking, how will anyone be able to distinguish truth from the latest version of the “Party line”? This gives new meaning to the term “Daily”, which appears in the masthead of so many newspapers — “truth” that is altered daily, with all preceding versions of truth obliterated, so that there is no possibility to trace one’s way back to the actual Truth. No doubt, this has been the plan with secular governments and the media for some time; but If this begins to occur in the Catholic Church in relation to online versions of official documents and teachings, then it will only be those who have books and other printed copies of these document who will have access to the Truth — to the immutable and eternal teachings of the Truth Himself: our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ, His Apostles, and His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

    A final note: the Current version of the Catechism, for all that it did amend the outrageous modern psychologist lie that people don’t choose homosexualism and that is it somehow a part of their essence, is still weak in its condemnation of homosexualism as a grave evil — a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance. Where is the mention of man’s susceptibility to sin, his inclination toward moral evil and his potential to collude with the demonic tempters in order to embrace depravity? All of us are both that way. Yet, evidently because of the influence of that discipline which has become the scientific materialism of the soul — modern psychology — the moral dimension and culpability of homosexualism are passed over and replaced by sentimentalized and unconvincing formulations like “its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained” and “This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial”. How is the genesis of the inclination to commit sin “unexplained”? The devil goes around like a roaring lion seeking someone to devour; so the source of the temptation is clear. Any chronic or acute inclination toward sin that any of us experiences “constitutes … a trial”; how do those who are persecuted with temptations toward homosexualism any different than any of us in enduring the trial of temptation?

    The sad fact is that, even in its current, less damaging form, which at least uses the phrase “objectively disordered”, the most-recent version of the Catechism invents a new breed of human being who are “homosexuals” per se. At what other time in Church history was such a proposition made? God creates us male and female, not LGBT

    • Clintoncps, you have made a very good point. With electronic “documents” as our sole reference source, the”truth” can change every day, or every five minutes at the whim of the controllers. The only consolation in that world of infinite chaos is that those who were ferociously orthodox five minutes ago are now abominable heretics. You can see this with old-style feminists like Germaine Greer who were “radical” in 1968, but now fall foul of the latest orthodoxy on gender theory.

      • Which reminded me again on this (among other things).
        Who is responsible for denying importance and necessity of INDEX?
        This whole hyperuberapostasy is not since yesterday. These things are all the FRUITS of the False Spirit which entered the Church as legion decades ago.

        • Digital copies do bear fingerprints of changes but it is harder for the lay public to cross-check older versions without some technical background. We end up relying on other’s words about those changes… Quite troublesome.

          • I do not think that digitalized copies can be easily changed. If the good, proven true Catholic books are scanned-digitalized, then they are good. And it must be more than easy for every person with two hands and a bit brain, especially those who are the members of facebook and such, – to just open a pdf file and read it.
            Btw. there are already many valuable and very worthy Catholic books digitalized (as this example
            And that is what we should and must do more. I bet there are many people who have number of worthy books, which might (and must) be shared with others (as a pdf scan-copy of the original)
            Mine readings are more than 80% from digital sources. (For more than last 5 years) And especially when people are searching the truth, they just must be able anyhow to reach the original, and/or old writings.

          • I’m thinking more in terms of webpages. I prefer physical copies of documents also but altering a webpage is simple. State level actors can do it with impunity (often cloaking the alterations altogether). Without a perfect capture database most people have no way of cross-referencing the changes. We are a long way off from that happening in the Church but it is a foreseeable problem. (And also why “block-chain” computing is important IMO).

          • Oh, I agree with that about webpages or blogs od such. They are not trustworthy and should be used only when we have original or hardcopy of it. This regarding quotations and whole articles or books which are written with 0’s and 1’s.
            Saying that, I can confirm often irregularities when I am looking for even some of the quotations from Catholic Bible, and here I am speaking about so-called safe Catholic sites and portals.

    • Hence the necessity for owning books(first printing as possible) and library’s. Nothing digital is to be trusted without some means of verification.

  6. I have the 1994 translation: paperback published by Image/Doubleday (“First Image Books edition published April 1995” on the copyright page). It says under 2358, “They do not choose their homosexual condition….” Of course, in the previous paragraph it says that this is “intrinsically disordered.” I happen to agree that in almost every circumstance, this “homosexual condition” is not a choice, regardless of whether the primary determination is nature or nurture. That, in fact, should be non-controversial. And, yet, it is still objectively, intrinsically disordered.

  7. Remember the good old days when someone didn’t agree with the teachings of the CC, they left it. Now they stay and make a “mess”.

  8. This whole discussion within the CC is a farce.

    What about those whose “intrinsic disorder” is excessive anger, or racism, or kleptomania, or bestiality, or……what the Pope reminds us plagues some journalists…coprophagia?

    What about them??

    How come they don’t get special treatment in the CCC?

    Why aren’t they included in those who must be treated with “respect, compassion and sensitivity.”

    But OOOOOOHHHHH, no, just the faggots get such special-sinner status.

    Honestly, the longer I am a Catholic the more I have to agree with those who suggest a hermeneutic of discontinuity has occurred in the CC since V2.

    V2 council looks more and more like a V2 bomb.

    Discussing the topic in the way it is done in the Church today gives up ground the sodomites do not deserve to occupy. The TRUTH is they deserve NO RESPECT. To give them the special treatment they demand lends credibility to them as they support one of the most evil, diabolical and base lifestyles on planet earth. It’s a sick, sordid joke to take them seriously as they are, as some sort of “third sex”, and it promotes the twisting of the teachings of the Catholic Church to suggest that somehow those who pursue sodomy as a lifestyle WHICH IS A CHOICE are somehow in need of special treatment.

    They SHOULD feel the ire and condemnation of the Church, society and individuals.

    How do I know this?


    • Yes, and more specifically, imo, the work of Jewish writers Freud and Jung is entangled into this error in some way. The whole system of thought known as “psychology”, nature vs nurture, all of this, has arguably done more harm than good, by dulling people’s understanding of sin.

    • ” just the faggots get such special-sinner status”….gives up ground to the sodomites..”….”deserve no respect…” “…which is a choice…”
      RodH, you are the one of the reasons why the like of “Fr” James Martin has an audience. SMH!

          • What a ridiculous statement from a guy who calls homosexuality an “abomination”.

            Yeah, there’s the “high ground” taken, Joe. So my outdated {?} term is unacceptable but “abomination” is acceptable?

            Do you even read your own posts?

          • While I do use that word myself, because I’m an uncharitable prude, Joe is right. I have a parent who lives in the homosexual lifestyle. Calling them a faggot won’t help, lol.

          • I reckon calling what he/she does “vicious, vile, abomination”, Joe’s choice words aren’t going to win you points either…

          • I have watched Catholics run away, ditch and redefine every dogma and doctrine under the sun on the grounds of the “principle of context and the virtue of prudence” so, yes, I guess I could answer that in the affirmative.

          • Yep that may be true, however it does not change the objective truth of what context and prudence are. And this is my point; that no matter how infuriating and frustrating everything becomes, we can`t lower ourselves to their tactics. I gotta go now. Keep fighting the good fight RodH. God bless you!

          • Joe, thank you.

            And very seriously: I’ll avoid the word, but you go check out the use of {harsh?
            derogatory?} language by both Jesus and St Paul.

            And leave St Pius V and his recommendation for civil authority administration of execution of homosexual priests for another day… 😉

          • When I speak to them and we get on the subject, I call it and the behavior by its technical name. Sodomy and sodomite.

          • Whoa!!!!

            BOTH those two words are heavily loaded with derogatory meaning. I mean that entirely. I have debated homosexuals and sympathizers and NO ONE accepts those terms. You get away with THAT?

            You must be making headway!

          • They’re protestant so I mean they already know the lifestyle is sinful. They used to be Catholic but left the Church.

          • Seriously, the nitpicking of words here is quite fascinating to me.

            “F____t” “derogatory”
            “Vile” acceptable.
            “Vicious” acceptable.
            “Abomination’ acceptable.

            There is not one homosexual or homosexual sympathizer i know who would agree with that list as-is.

            EVERY ONE of those terms are EQUALLY “derogatory” to the whole movement.

            With ONE difference:

            You will occasionally see/hear homosexuals using the term “f____t” to describe themselves whereas you will NEVER hear them use the other terms similarly.

            The whole argument that the one word is “derogatory” to homosexuals or those sympathetic to them while the others aren’t is nonsense.

          • Eh, I grew up around friends who called one another fags and all derivations of the word. I use it out of disgust sometimes to describe the behavior; but I already know that I’m pretty uncharitable. My wife calls me on it all the time.
            I think it’s a prudence issue. If you’re sincerely trying to reach someone you don’t want to be a ‘clanging symbol.’ While most homosexuals find the term ‘sodomite’ offensive, it is, regardless of what they think, the historical term for the behavior. It probably would leave a bad taste in their mouth.
            Now if you’re just looking to offend, any derivation of the word fag will work.
            It’s a matter of prudence.

          • I grew up as you did, but I’d actually say that if you are “trying to reach someone you don’t want to be a ‘clanging symbol”.

            I have debated the homosexual crowd from time to time and NEVER, have i ever seen anything that would indicate “sodomite” is any less loaded a word than “faggot”.

            So if one understanding of “prudence” is taken, then “homosexual” or some other favorable word is best used exclusively. And we should avoid using terms like “vile”.

            I submit that lighting these people up, and by ‘these people’ i mean those who promote the lifestyle IN THE CHURCH we are forcing the issue to the forefront in a way the compromisers and capitulators have not done,.

            In fact, to the contrary, all the “prudence” that has been demonstrated on this issue for the last many decades has done NOTHING but advance the cause of the fa….I mean, “homosexuals”.

            I will add that I left the United Methodist Church in 1981 over this issue {and others} and THEY ACTED EXACTLY AS WE ARE SEEING PROMOTED AND ADVANCED EVEN HERE IN THIS COMBOX. Catholics are exceedingly naive in so many of these areas. We from Protestantism had this stuff, same stuff, going on all the way back into the 1940’s and before. It is the same playbook, the same strategy. and Catholics are acting exactly as did Methodists and Lutherans and Reformed; with measured “prudence”.

          • Yeah well you do have a point. Sodomy-promoting clergymen have no intention of conversion; I would fall into that category of mudslinger in that case. I’ve certainly been guilty of driveby comments peppered with the dreaded f-word before.

          • And more;

            See how they control the language.

            see how even the totally UNloaded “LGBT” can now be criticized for lacking the “Q”, yet others demand we use it w/o.

            Folks miss this!

            We are kept struggling then to find the “prudent” word with which to engage in discussion, and THEY control the field the whole time.

            Christ used “derogatory”, actually insulting…but ACCURATE…terms to get the point across.


            We argue over whether “f____t” is derogatory while “vile” is…what…soothing?

            Catholics have already got two wheels in the same ditch as the Protestants had before they spun out and crashed and burned.

            We have got to keep the other two on the road and navigate all four to the pavement.

            “Prudence” now means “false prudence” just as “mercy” is really so often “false mercy”.

            And Joe, if you are out there; It is the CONTEXT that drives the need for harsh and yes, even derogatory language at times. Each and every step we have taken in the last 50 years on the issue of homosexuality, in our Western culture and in the Church, has been “prudently” pointing the car to the edge of the cliff.

          • I describe the sin as sodomy but avoid using the terms “gay” or “sodomite”. That’s labeling a person by their sin.

            In modern parlance even “gay” means embracing of sodomy.

          • Honesty is the best policy. Sinners need to be shaken up. Sodomy is indeed vile and degrading and is it worth so much to them that they would rather go to Hell? Acts of sodomy go against our human nature, both body and soul.
            Eternity is serious business.
            In addition to ‘sodomy’, we also use the terms ‘adulterer’ and ‘fornicator’. Those are the traditional translations in English of those terms from the original languages. Why wouldn’t there be a negative connotation to them? How is that surprising???? These sins will send to Hell those who die in them unrepentant.

          • We should label them in a more sensitive way.

            Take for instance the injustice of labelling Jeffrey Dahmer a serial killing cannibal.

            It’d be far better to refer to him as, Mr. Dhamer who was a person who had problems with impulse control and whose diet was different from the diets or most people.

          • Well said.

            FIRST the whole demand for this silly Extra Special “respect” drives a change in language to conceal the natural disdain people have for the acts and those who perform and promote them.

            Next, with their newfound “status” they proceed to promote the “lifestyle” or advance notions of victimhood or inability to control themselves, or biological necessity of tendencies, etc.

            And all the while, they are fussing any time somebody pops up and says what most people are actually thinking; words that come to mind that have always been used to describe those who pursue that type of activity which are now absolutely Verboten. Until folks are no longer thinking those words, but rather, inside feeling sorry for the poor “gay guy”.

            Catholics are being 100% suckered by this whole thing and frankly, if the polls are correct, “Catholics” overall are not just spectators in the advance of the homosexualist agenda, they are active promoters of it. Putting it another way, I’d put my money on a garden run Baptist to advance a more truly Catholic position on homosexuality than I would Catholics, in-general.

          • ” a person who had problems with impulse control and whose diet was different from the diets or most people.”

            That’s it exactly.

            We live in an era where use of language is governed by sophistry and euphemisms.

            And our Catholic leaders are fluent in the lingo!

          • RodH Faggot is a derogatory term and well you know it! It is unchristian and uncharitable. You should be ashamed of yourself. The word abomination in this context is defined as; an action that is vicious, vile, etc, which anal sex is.

          • As I stated, Joe, I removed the offending word. But maybe I shouldn’t have. When Christ called the Pharisees {who by the way like the homosexuals promoted the destruction of marriage, too} “sons of the devil”, He used a term that can’t be trumped for harshness in modern English. among other terms he used to describe those who sought to break down the teaching of God.

            Go read your Bible, Joe.

            As if the descriptors “vicious, vile, etc, which anal sex is” are going to win you “respect’ and admiration among the “homosexuals”. Really, you are trying to strain a gnat thru a tennis net.

          • Where did the pharisitical rabbis condemn the family? They were the hard liners of the Jewish law, not deviants from it.

          • Read Matthew Chapter 19.

            Don’t let your modern cultural understanding of a “hardliner’ [not a biblical word by the way} confuse you from seeing how the Pharisees protected their sins with their system.

            In fact, the progressives of today are the Pharisees.

          • I did indeed.

            The Pharisees attacked the very foundation of marriage itself in their support for Mosaic divorce and “remarriage” which Jesus called adultery.

            So many of the horrific and destructive issues we face in society today stem directly from the collapse of the family caused by the practice and belief the Pharisees supported; divorce and remarriage.

            I wager to say the entire issue of homosexuality itself would drift into virtual oblivion were it not for the fragmentation and dissolution of the marriage culture.

            No one doubts anymore the intense trauma done to children by the impact of divorce and so-called “remarriage”. Indeed, look at the abuse of children caused by step-parents.

            The Pharisees wanted their free, easy divorce, their ‘letter of divorce” under the broken Mosaic code. Jesus spoke not just eternal moral truth to them, but He spoke healing to them; By condemning so-called “remarriage’ as adultery, He warned them against what would befalls civilization itself when marriage is destroyed by divorce.

            “For I hate divorce” says Malachi 2:16.

            but the Pharisees demanded it.

            Just as the those progressive Catholic clergy, bishop and lay Pharisees demand it today.

          • I’m not certain that is the adultery you refer to. And neither in the catholic or the Protestant Church did I ever learn that these scriptures were interpreted in such a way.

          • “And neither in the catholic or the Protestant Church did I ever learn that these scriptures were interpreted in such a way.”

            A truer statement couldn’t be made.

            1} Protestants reject Christ’s clear teaching. It is one of the foundational positions of their heresy. {I come from a long lie of Protestant ministers and am theologically trained as a Methodist.}

            2} What I stated is absolutely Catholic truth.

            That you were not “taught’ that only lays the heavy weight of blame on whoever taught you.

            Here you go, for starters:

            “Can. 7. If anyone says that the Church errs in that she taught and teaches that in accordance with evangelical and apostolic doctrine the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved by reason of adultery on the part of one of the parties, and that both, or even the innocent party who gave no occasion for adultery, cannot contract another marriage during the lifetime of the other, and that he is guilty of adultery who, having put away the adulteress, shall marry another, and she also who, having put away the adulterer, shall marry another,[13] let him be anathema.

            Council of Trent:

            It has always been so.



            I hope this helps.

            All the best.


          • I’m going to talk to my TLM priest about this because I was never taught that this was O’Hara Sarc law to destroy families. I am already familiar with the scripture verses you cite but that still doesn’t prove that Jews or Pharisees, in particular, were anti family

          • No one admits to being “anti-family” except for committed philosophical Communists.

            But BEING anti-family is another thing entirely. The RESULTS of the Pharisaical teaching, that on the defense of divorce/remarriage, is absolutely anti-family. In fact, it is a strike right at the heart of the family which is committed marriage.

            Divorce is anti-family. “Remarriage” {adultery according to Jesus} is anti-family.

            If your TLM priest knows the Scripture and the doctrines of the faith, I am 100% certain he will get the point.

        • Comfortable, as in having it reinforced by endorsements from far and wide. Truth is, man is so moral, made that way by God, that they can never ever be truly comfortable in sin (unless a true sociopath — and maybe a possessed one — like Hitler or Stalin), so they desperately try to get others to “affirm” and “accompany” their evil.
          But it is their doom, because when they meet God, they’ll see themselves as they truly are, with all the games and blinders gone. And then they’ll know they’ve not chosen God at all, but the other guy. Who, of course, will be more than happy to take tem away.

        • It absolutely is!!! It is a distortion of the beauty of the marital act. Objectively, it is an abomination.
          My position and my comment to RodH was simply expressing my dismay at the unchristian wording of his criticism. Calling people “faggots” etc is not helping anyone. Many young people today are being brainwashed into the homosexual life and the manner in which we conduct ourselves is of vital importance in showing the way to the truth.

          • I’m really curious about something.

            Have you ever read the Bible?


            Have you ever read the words used by Christ to describe those attacking God’s teaching… that is, the Pharisees {a group who sought to diminish sacred marriage WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS IS ABOUT}??

            Would you ever QUOTE St Paul on this subject in public?

            These people attacking the teaching of the Church, and they ARE, should be described in the strongest possible terms. All the kid gloving that has been directed at them for over 50 years has accomplished exactly WHAT Joe? WHAT?

            Let me tell you what:

            Increased “respect” that encourages their perversions. Advanced positions in the Church to further advance evil. Acceptance of their chosen “lifestyle”.

            You come up with a better plan to clearly present the gravity of the situation and I’m all ears.

          • Oh I share your anger, frustration and disgust at what is being done to the Church. I have no problem in quoting any part of Scripture to anyone about anything….
            However, I don`t remember Christ using any profanity or generalisations in calling people out of their sin. And that was simply my point.

          • As I supposed.

            You don’t read the Bible.

            I’ll let you do some research into the descriptive language Christ used.

            It was to the point and when necessary, very, very harsh.

            They killed him for a reason, Joe.

            Because He didn’t mince words.

            Something, unfortunately, so many Catholics have raised to a high art.

            Now, go back after your Bible study and see what Pope SAINT Pius V had to say about the topic in question.

            Then come back and tell me how my language is “unchristian” while yours is “christian”.

          • Lol, the cheek of you! “As I supposed. You don’t read the Bible.” LOL
            I am well versed in the Bible and it is for that exact reason I know that Christ would never approve of your language and tactics. He knew what to say, when to say and who to say it to. You obviously don`t share that skill. You may want to work on that RodH!

          • Cheek?

            Go do a word study, Joe. Then come back and tell us what you found.

            You accused me of using harsh language.

            Christ used extremely harsh language, and so did St Paul, and so did in the thrust of it, St Pius V and…guess what, Joe, SO DID YOU.

            Your critique is ridiculous.

          • No I did not accuse you of using harsh language. I accused you of using derogatory language. Huge difference!

          • Absolute BS, Joe.

            How totally hypocritical of you.

            You didn’t just critique my use of a word {I edited it for you…feel better now?}

            You critiqued absolutely unarguable points:

            “ up ground to the sodomites..”….”deserve no respect…” “…which is a choice…””

            What a total hypocrite you are. You critique THAT and then go on to use the word ABOMINATION to describe it?

            You are spewing nonsense.

            Yeah, Joe, go tell the “homosexuals” they are engaging in an “abominations” and they’ll be so thankful to you for not using the word “faggot”.

            You are just talking nonsense.

      • I take this as an intended criticism and insult.

        Thank you.

        If you’d added a few more disparaging terms I’d be even more honored.

      • ”Fr ” Martin has an audience because along with other like him in the Church there is no faith in God, no understanding of reason and no objective truth.
        What is left are animal instincts and appetites to dictate one’s lifestyle. Mere human thinking.
        ”If God does not exist, everything is permitted” Dostoyevsky

  9. I’m not sure that you noticed Steve, but the language of “intrinsically disordered” is found in paragraph 2357 in both the 1994 and 1997 versions, as you can see from the images above and at the Vatican’s website (with one underscore or two). So the 1994 version just avoids saying the same thing in two successive paragraphs, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Whether those who suffer with homosexual inclinations do or do not “choose their homosexual condition” is another matter. Personally, I think that most do not but a few do. I have no idea of the percentages. But as RodH points out above – and I agree with him – “sodomy as a lifestyle [is] a choice.” (emphasis mine). The mere temptation to act in a certain way must be separated from the decision of the will to accede to the temptation.

    As always, keep up the good work.

    • The first time I read this I found the whole special treatment thing bizarre. Theologically it made no sense either as there are MANY sins that are very challenging for people to avoid committing and the thing just smelled liked somebody who has a dog in the fight allowed their own personal inclinations to inform their theologizing. Subsequent information does nothing to dispel that notion.

      • It said the same thing about masturbation, how “force of acquired habit” minimizes culpability, more situational ethics right there. That was the gateway error in my view.

        • It is.

          Funny you bring up the diminishment of culpability passage. I remember reading that when I was a new Catholic and thought…”Uh, Oh… What have I got myself into…”

          This thing allows for ANYTHING to be explained away.

          I was not wrong.

    • It would only matter if they were removing the language from 2358 to make it weaker. We’ve been warned that this is exactly what they want to do, so that kind of a change would be significant.

      Since it turns out this is how it was in 1994 and was later strengthened in 1997, I agree that there isn’t a problem here — other than the oddity of having a 24-year-old page with out-of-date language on the site (it does appear to be extensively hyperlinked, so perhaps it’s just part of the concordance?) accessible on the site.

  10. “Is the Vatican Tinkering With the Online Catechism to Remove Catholic Teaching on Homosexuality?”

    Why not? John Paul II and Cdl. Ratzinger tinkered with the CCC subtly yet powerfully to change Catholic teaching on capital punishment.

    From my article in “The Remnant” on the subject:

    The head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith during John Paul’s tenure – Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI – changed the catechism to reflect the late pope’s view.

    “If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority must limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.” (emphases added)

    Before “Evangelium Vitae,” the catechism read, “If, however, bloodless means…authority should limit itself….” (emphases added).

    What is the difference between “should” and “must”? “Should” is advisory but “must” implies a demand. With these substitutions, Ratzinger and John Paul changed the fundamental moral criterion from the divine image within humanity – a criterion imposed by inspired Scripture – to the State’s ability to incarcerate capital felons.

    Francis is not an outlier. John Paul II laid the egg of arbitrary theological revisionism that Francis is hatching.

    • “If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority must limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.”

      Uh-oh, I see a “concrete conditions” in that sentence. Is that where it crept in so that PF could later pick it up and use it to justify “situation ethics”?

      • To me, it is the phrase “dignity of the human person ” that is so wrong there. Capital punishment is intended primarily as retributive justice, i.e. the criminal has not only grieved God by his wicked act, but he has forfeit his right to life and must pay back to society the debt which he has incurred. This may in turn lead to his repentance and salvation, and even a lessening of his time in purgatory.
        Btu of course, there is no mention of such Catholic thoughts in that paragraph. Human dignity takes the place of God’s Majesty.

        • “Dignity”. “Accompaniment”. “Mercy”. All redefined into Masonic terms antithetical to the traditional teaching of Jesus and the CC.

        • The whole concept of retribution is absent from modernity. I guess it has something to do with the liberal elite’s inability to grasp a viable paradox between justice and mercy.

          • That is it entirely.

            Bred, I submit, by the seeds planted by Freemasonry and the cataclysm of World War 2 and the threat of nuclear war, the latter 2 of which are shadows that darken our thought even today. They are also excuses for many.

            The excesses of the War have powerfully corroded concepts of justice and were especially insidious I believe in the thought of JPII.

          • Karl, God disallowed monetary compensation to murder victims because no about of money could compensate for the loss of their loved one, in God’s eyes. Capital punishment, therefore, was not about restitution but about punishment proportional to the offense.

            From my article on the subject in “The Remnant”:

            The Old Testament provides the deepest layer of soil for the traditional teaching’s roots. In Genesis 9:5-6, God orders Noah and his descendants to execute murderers:

            “I will demand an accounting for human life… Anyone who sheds the blood of a human being, by a human being shall that one’s blood be shed. For in the image of God have human beings been made. (New American Bible).”

            That command came after a flood that destroyed a morally chaotic world – and is repeated in every book of the Torah, the first five books that form the Bible’s foundation.

            The command implies three theological principles. First, if God is the author of life, then God retains the prerogative to define the circumstances under which life can be taken. Second, God demands that humanity create just societies to protect the innocent. Third, murder is such a heinous violation of the divine image in humanity that execution is the only appropriate punishment.

            Exodus 20-23 elaborates on these principles in the lex talonis, which advocates punishment proportional to the offense – the original meaning of “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.” Instead of encouraging vengeance, as the modern hierarchy maintains, the lex talonis discourages ad hoc vigilantism – the ultimate form of vindictiveness – in favor of due process.

            In the New Testament, St. Paul reinforces the idea in his letter to the Romans. In Chapter 12, he discourages his readers from avenging themselves by quoting Deuteronomy 32:35 (“Vengeance is mine, says the Lord. I will repay!”). In the next chapter, St. Paul encourages them to rely on due process through legitimate authorities “because they do not bear the sword in vain (verse 4).”

          • No, Karl, when vengeance or retribution is understood in the traditional sense, then it can indeed be lawful subject to the conditions set out by St Thomas Aquinas in Summa, II II 108:

            “Article 1. Whether vengeance is lawful?

            Objection 1. It seems that vengeance is not lawful. For whoever usurps what is God’s sins. But vengeance belongs to God, for it is written (Deuteronomy 32:35, Romans 12:19): “Revenge to Me, and I will repay.” Therefore all vengeance is unlawful.

            Objection 2. Further, he that takes vengeance on a man does not bear with him. But we ought to bear with the wicked, for a gloss on Canticles 2:2, “As the lily among the thorns,” says: “He is not a good man that cannot bear with a wicked one.” Therefore we should not take vengeance on the wicked.

            Objection 3. Further, vengeance is taken by inflicting punishment, which is the cause of servile fear. But the New Law is not a law of fear, but of love, as Augustine states (Contra Adamant. xvii). Therefore at least in the New Testament all vengeance is unlawful.

            Objection 4. Further, a man is said to avenge himself when he takes revenge for wrongs inflicted on himself. But, seemingly, it is unlawful even for a judge to punish those who have wronged him: for Chrysostom [Cf. Opus Imperfectum, Hom. v in Matth., falsely ascribed to St. Chrysostom] says: “Let us learn after Christ’s example to bear our own wrongs with magnanimity, yet not to suffer God’s wrongs, not even by listening to them.” Therefore vengeance seems to be unlawful.

            Objection 5. Further, the sin of a multitude is more harmful than the sin of only one: for it is written (Sirach 26:5-7): “Of three things my heart hath been afraid . . . the accusation of a city, and the gathering together of the people, and a false calumny.” But vengeance should not be taken on the sin of a multitude, for a gloss on Matthew 13:29-30, “Lest perhaps . . . you root up the wheat . . . suffer both to grow,” says that “a multitude should not be excommunicated, nor should the sovereign.” Neither therefore is any other vengeance lawful.

            On the contrary, We should look to God for nothing save what is good and lawful. But we are to look to God for vengeance on His enemies: for it is written (Luke 18:7): “Will not God revenge His elect who cry to Him day and night?” as if to say: “He will indeed.” Therefore vengeance is not essentially evil and unlawful.

            I answer that, Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned. Accordingly, in the matter of vengeance, we must consider the mind of the avenger. For if his intention is directed chiefly to the evil of the person on whom he takes vengeance and rests there, then his vengeance is altogether unlawful: because to take pleasure in another’s evil belongs to hatred, which is contrary to the charity whereby we are bound to love all men. Nor is it an excuse that he intends the evil of one who has unjustly inflicted evil on him, as neither is a man excused for hating one that hates him: for a man may not sin against another just because the latter has already sinned against him, since this is to be overcome by evil, which was forbidden by the Apostle, who says (Romans 12:21): “Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil by good.”

            If, however, the avenger’s intention be directed chiefly to some good, to be obtained by means of the punishment of the person who has sinned (for instance that the sinner may amend, or at least that he may be restrained and others be not disturbed, that justice may be upheld, and God honored), then vengeance may be lawful, provided other due circumstances be observed.

            Reply to Objection 1. He who takes vengeance on the wicked in keeping with his rank and position does not usurp what belongs to God but makes use of the power granted him by God. For it is written (Romans 13:4) of the earthly prince that “he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” If, however, a man takes vengeance outside the order of divine appointment, he usurps what is God’s and therefore sins.

            Reply to Objection 2. The good bear with the wicked by enduring patiently, and in due manner, the wrongs they themselves receive from them: but they do not bear with them as to endure the wrongs they inflict on God and their neighbor. For Chrysostom [Cf. Opus Imperfectum, Hom. v in Matth., falsely ascribed to St. Chrysostom] says: “It is praiseworthy to be patient under our own wrongs, but to overlook God’s wrongs is most wicked.”

            Reply to Objection 3. The law of the Gospel is the law of love, and therefore those who do good out of love, and who alone properly belong to the Gospel, ought not to be terrorized by means of punishment, but only those who are not moved by love to do good, and who, though they belong to the Church outwardly, do not belong to it in merit.

            Reply to Objection 4. Sometimes a wrong done to a person reflects on God and the Church: and then it is the duty of that person to avenge the wrong. For example, Elias made fire descend on those who were come to seize him (2 Kings 1); likewise Eliseus cursed the boys that mocked him (2 Kings 2); and Pope Sylverius excommunicated those who sent him into exile (XXIII, Q. iv, Cap. Guilisarius). But in so far as the wrong inflicted on a man affects his person, he should bear it patiently if this be expedient. For these precepts of patience are to be understood as referring to preparedness of the mind, as Augustine states (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i).

            Reply to Objection 5. When the whole multitude sins, vengeance must be taken on them, either in respect of the whole multitude—thus the Egyptians were drowned in the Red Sea while they were pursuing the children of Israel (Exodus 14), and the people of Sodom were entirely destroyed (Genesis 19)—or as regards part of the multitude, as may be seen in the punishment of those who worshipped the calf.

            Sometimes, however, if there is hope of many making amends, the severity of vengeance should be brought to bear on a few of the principals, whose punishment fills the rest with fear; thus the Lord (Numbers 25) commanded the princes of the people to be hanged for the sin of the multitude.

            On the other hand, if it is not the whole but only a part of the multitude that has sinned, then if the guilty can be separated from the innocent, vengeance should be wrought on them: provided, however, that this can be done without scandal to others; else the multitude should be spared and severity foregone. The same applies to the sovereign, whom the multitude follow. For his sin should be borne with, if it cannot be punished without scandal to the multitude: unless indeed his sin were such, that it would do more harm to the multitude, either spiritually or temporally, than would the scandal that was feared to arise from his punishment.”

    • It appears not. When I discovered it, it seemed important to document what was found and ask the questions.

      Because I did that, others were able to point out that the language on the alternate version of the page came from the 1994 Catechism. This was later changed and strengthened.

      Because this fits so perfectly with the alleged coming attack on this section of the paragraph, I raised the alarm, asking whether this was being done surreptitiously. It appears that the alarm was false, but that’s no reason to let our guard down.

      • Steve: The problem as I see it is that the damage has already been done. As I have pointed out here on this combox already, the “special sinner status” granted homosexuals in the CCC is itself something of a scandal and the language already is soft enough that there is plenty of wiggle room to allow all sorts of corrupting interpretations.

        The whole concept of a sodomite being worthy of “respect” for being a sodomite is staggeringly repulsive and theologically corrosive.

        Whenever I read such things I simply ask myself:

        What has the Church said in the past?

        What would St Paul say?

        What would St Pius V say?

        Well, they already said it, and it had nothing to do with promoting the notion that a guy deserves to be specially treated because he wants to have anal sex with his sister’s boyfriend.

        • I always wondered why the sodomists get to have that special notation while those who commit violence, rape, or genocide do not get the same treatment? Should we treat rapists with disrespect? Are those who commit genocide not children of God too?

          • That is it exactly.

            Why don’t card-carrying NAZI’s get the special treatment? How about wannabe members of the Khmer rouge? How about those strongly inclined to join the KKK and struggling every day with the terrible burden of racist bigotry?

            IT IS BS. ALL OF IT.

            The sodomites have been given special treatment because the Church leaders are allies and friends and many probably faggots themselves.

        • And just so everyone is clear: Cardinal Schonborn was the guy picked by JPII to edit the Catechism. Here he is talking about same-sex relationships:

          You can and you must respect the decision of creating a union with the person of the same sex, to seek the instruments in the civil law to protect their coexistence and their situation with laws that assure this protection. But, if we are asked, if you demand that the Church says this is a marriage, well we must say: non possumus (we cannot). It is not a discrimination of people: distinction does not mean to discriminate. This does not absolutely prevent having a great respect, a friendship, or a collaboration with couples who live this type of union, and, above all, to not despise them. No one is obligated it to accept this doctrine, but you cannot expect that the Church does not teach it.


          I know [a] homosexual person who has lived a series of experiences for years, not with the person in particular or in a coexistence, but frequent experiences with different people. Now he has found a stable relationship. It is an improvement,if only on a human level, no longer passing from one relationship to another, but he is stabilized in a relationship that is not based only on sexuality. He shares his life, they share joys and suffering, there is help for each other. We must recognize that this person has made an important step, for their own good and the good of others, even if, certainly, it is not a situation that the Church can consider as regular. Judgment on these sexual acts as such is necessary, but the Church must not look first into the bedroom, but into the dining room! It is necessary to accompany.

          Here is a bulletin from his cathedral, apparently celebrating such a union:

          I’m sure it wouldn’t be hard to find more.

          • Cardinal Shownporn should be given a chance to recant and if he doesn’t, excommunicated.

            But that is old news…

          • The buck stops with Jorge. But, the hierarchy has clearly chosen to leave the hens and the chicks defenseless, save their own devices, to be eaten alive by the foxes, wolves or any preditors.

            Is it any wonder why people are giving up?

            Not to me!

          • The man is an idiot. Exchange sodomist with incest and then read his demonic crap. Should we “accept” a father in a sexual relationship with his son? The fundamental point is that this man does not see sodomy as that big a sin. Period. End.

  11. So what’s new then? The CCC has been a political football ever since it was published! Not only has it been constantly revised, it’s poorly written, poorly translated, and, in places, lacking in clarity: in short it lacks the necessary requirements of an authoritative catechism.

    • CCC written by st Robert Bellarmin and Trident Catechism are not!
      It is that the progressives who were and are deceived with the false spirit, makes overall “changes” according to the wish of that same false spirit. So the same with the HOLY BIBLE.
      Go and do some check on the modernistic translations/editions published last decades.
      Many if not all of them (in all languages) are “MODIFIED” according that same spirit!
      They call those editions also “neo-vulgate”! While only the LATIN VULGATE and exact, authentically, faithfully translation of this only officially HOLY BIBLE of the RCC IS and MUST BE THE BIBLE used by the Catholics around the whole World.
      One English edition of the REAL BIBLE is DRA.
      I don’t know others (English versions).

  12. I am thinking….the homosexuals running the Vatican, and are buddies of Pope Francis…..the same ones that could have been behind the unexplained abdication of Pope Benedict XVI…..are revving into full swing to continue demolition of the . Church. What is alarming is the buttoned lips of so many Cardinals and Bishops who can see how the faithful and the Church are devastated. I have tried to communicate concerns and questions to the Papal Nuncio, and his Monsignor assistant (to Australia and Philippines) for months back without as much as even a courteous acknowledgement. For anyone who may remember reading the letter of threat (to take over our churches, our feeble men etc.) written many years ago in California by a Michael Swift, we can see how successful those devilish people have been. THE HOMOSEXUAL MANIFESTO
    By Michael Swift, “Gay Revolutionary.” Reprinted from The Congressional Record of the United States Congress. First printed in
    Gay Community News, February 15-21 1987
    “We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and
    vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your
    locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater
    bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of
    Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our
    bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.
    “Women, you cry for freedom. You say you are no longer satisfied with men; they make you
    unhappy. We, connoisseurs of the masculine face, the masculine physique, shall take your men from
    you then. We will amuse them; we will instruct them; we will embrace them when they weep.
    Women, you say you wish to live with each other instead of with men. Then go and be with each
    other. We shall give your men pleasures they have never known because we are foremost men too,
    and only one man knows how to truly please another man; only one man can understand the depth
    and feeling, the mind and body of another man.
    “All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which
    engenders love between men. All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united
    artistically, philosophically, socially, politically and financially. We will triumph only when we
    present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy.
    “If you dare to cry faggot, fairy, queer, at us, we will stab you in your
    cowardly hearts and defile your dead, puny bodies.
    “We shall write poems of the love between men; we shall stage plays in which man openly caresses
    man; we shall make films about the love between heroic men which will replace the cheap,
    superficial, sentimental, insipid, juvenile, heterosexual infatuations presently dominating your cinema
    screens. We shall sculpt statues of beautiful young men, of bold athletes which will be placed in your parks, your squares, your plazas. The museums of the world will be filled only with paintings
    of graceful, naked lads.
    “Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable and de rigueur, and we will succeed
    because we are adept at setting styles. We will eliminate heterosexual liaisons through usage of the devices of wit and ridicule, devices which we are skilled in employing.
    “We will unmask the powerful homosexuals who masquerade as heterosexuals. You will be shocked
    and frightened when you find that your presidents and their sons, your industrialists, your senators,
    your mayors, your generals, your athletes, your film stars, your television personalities, your civic
    leaders, your priests are not the safe, familiar, bourgeois, heterosexual figures you assumed them to
    be. We are everywhere; we have infiltrated your ranks. Be careful when you speak of homosexuals
    because we are always among you; we may be sitting across the desk from you; we may be sleeping
    in the same bed with you.
    “There will be no compromises. We are not middle-class weaklings. Highly
    intelligent, we are the natural aristocrats of the human race, and steely-minded aristocrats never
    settle for less. Those who oppose us will be exiled. We shall raise vast private armies, as Mishima did,
    to defeat you. We shall conquer the world because warriors inspired by and banded together by
    homosexual love and honor are invincible as were the ancient Greek soldiers.
    “The family unit-spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence–will be
    abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated.
    Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in
    communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants.
    “All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. We adhere
    to a cult of beauty, moral and esthetic. All that is ugly and vulgar and banal will be annihilated. Since
    we are alienated from middle-class heterosexual conventions, we are free to live our lives according
    to the dictates of the pure imagination. For us too much is not enough.
    “The exquisite society to emerge will be governed by an elite comprised of gay poets. One of the
    major requirements for a position of power in the new society of homoeroticism will be indulgence
    in the Greek passion. Any man contaminated with heterosexual lust will be automatically barred
    from a position of influence. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in
    homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men.
    “We shall rewrite history, history filled and debased with your heterosexual lies and distortions. We
    shall portray the homosexuality of the great leaders and thinkers who have shaped the world. We will
    demonstrate that homosexuality and intelligence and imagination are inextricably linked, and that
    homosexuality is a requirement for true nobility, true beauty in a man.
    “We shall be victorious because we are fueled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed who have
    been forced to play seemingly bit parts in your dumb, heterosexual shows throughout the ages. We
    too are capable of firing guns and manning the barricades of the ultimate revolution.
    “Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.”
    Redeeming the Rainbow 203
    Supposed to be satire….but was it?
    The 1972 Gay Rights Platform appears to be right on course.also….

  13. When triggered by a good friend I pointed to this falsehood (“They do not choose…”) in a Croatian version of CCC, about 5 months ago, here on 1P5 in the conversation with our dear Catholic friend Rodney:
    I mentioned then a.o. this:
    2358. En – “This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.”
    2358. Cro – “Ne biraju oni svoje homoseksualno stanje; ono za vecinu njih predstavlja kusnju”
    (Translation 2358. Cro to Eng – “They do not choose their homosexual condition; that for most of them is a trial”)

    So, you may just know, that this was already done in the Croatian version of CCC, as online version (see link above), as a book version published 1994, of which the translation (pay attention!) is given by “Imprimi potest” Commissione Interdicasteriale per il Catechismo della Chiesa Catholica Prot. N. XII/91 C
    Roma, 6 luglio 1994.
    Joseph card. Ratzinger

    The Babylonians are making advantage of their curse!

  14. Anything goes:

    Google the story about the North Carolina man and his daughter having a child together.

    I could not get my cell phone to properly transfer the url link. Sorry.

    There is no end to people’s desires.

  15. Ultimately, there can be arguments between bored intellectuals or between secular, atheistic cardinals and faithful cardinals but, at bottom, it’s all very easy to solve: look a the inspired, inerrant Word of God in the Bible!

    Save achieving the Beatific Vision–which can only be done through the mercy and grace of Christ–the Bible does not lay out desirable outcomes with idealized ways to achieve said outcomes but pardon if less than ideal methods are used. No, the Bible is largely deontological. There is not description of times when it’s okay to lie, murder, commit adultery, engage in homosexuality, etc. We must do what God commands in every situation.

    Once compromised, it’s impossible to regain one’s footing in a given situation and often ever again. We have so many tales and true examples of seemingly good men who compromise their morals on one issue and then go off the rails completely.

    • Indeed Brian, It is easy to solve… But, the main problem is that there are NO people who want to solve. There are no people who read the Bible AT ALL. There are people with their own agenda which is full of crap, the poison, the venom spewed out of the mouth of the biggest Enemy of the Church.
      There are so many books and writing which simply MUST be thrown into the fire. Before the people who are seduced by such books themselves fall into eternal fire because of reading of these books.

  16. And, of course, this morning we get to throw this story into the mix. Just as documents are finally exposing the illegal and corrupt practices of Obama and Crooked Clinton, so documents are surfacing that tell a story somewhat different from that endorsed by authorities in the Vatican. Now we know, at least, why Cardinal O’Malley felt obligated to register at least some kind of demurral to the official papal line on the Barros case.

    • Undoubtedly I am being insensitive to time lines and juridical protocols, but the whole blazing world heard the objections raised to the Barros appointment. Does Pope Bergoglio require a personal letter to be handed him by a cardinal in order to pick up on the drift of things? Is this why this totally inadequate character just doesn’t get that the Church he is mandated to pastor is being flushed away while he thinks we are having some kind of “reform.”
      This man is not qualified to shop. He needs to go.

      • You’re right, of course, but this is one of those “gotcha” documents like the FISA memo. You can play dumb, deaf, and blind all you want as the pope and the American Democrats both do. But it’s hard to keep up the charade when someone says he handed you a paper personally that detailed the crimes. And, in this case, Francis cannot pretend he couldn’t read it since Cruz presumably wrote it in Spanish, the pope’s native language.

  17. I think this indicates that the lavender boys were active in 1994 but somebody higher up nixed this and we got the “intrinsically disordered” wording. Now, the “somebody higher up” is no longer there and in fact is probably one of the lavender boys. They had to wait until the JPII-Ratzinger team was no longer active before mounting the final assault. Remind me again why Benedict XVI abdicated?

    • It truly isn’t benign and no amount of approval can remove the problems associated with it.

      Some time ago I was debating some pro-homosexual fellows on a secular forum and decided to actually investigate what the “gay lobby” says about itself.

      Indeed, the gay organizations are well aware of the inherent dangers and diseases the lifestyle causes. It is grim and ugly to read their sites, but they make clear to their constituents the sweeping disease and are constantly trying to find ways to mitigate and educate their followers about how best to do what it wholly unnatural and utterly mechanically unintended.

      Letting the sodomites speak for themselves is an education.

      • One of the problems I frequently see are that Catholics, including Clergy, are quick to downplay the “condition” itself and place it in contrast to the act. Meaning they have no problem saying the acts are evil, but want everyone to hear the “condition” is not evil or sinful. Well, while technically true it over emphasizes it to the point that the condition is seen as normal or good. It is not normal or good. It is a serious problem and one that needs to be viewed a serious and disordered.

        • Correct.

          The best way to treat this is simply to demand of them a petition to the Church to update the CCC with a section bestiality and the need to grant those who are attracted to having sex with dogs “respect, compassion and understanding”.

          And while they are at it, they might as well add those who have the hots for their sisters and their brother’s 6 year old daughter, too, because ALL of that is THE SAME MORALLY.

          Yet somehow it isn’t……………………………YET.

          God help us.

          • Agreed. My understating is that this one moral depravity is seen by too many as no big deal. They view it through an emotional lens only. Their standard is not Christ but a serial killer. As long as you seem polite and pleasant and do not burn down your neighbor’s home you are a “good” person and a little sodomy is no biggie.

          • Next up to bat in the face of Islamic pressure?

            “Consensual” Child marriage.

            And then it’s off to “Incest is best. Put your sister to the test”.


  18. So I wonder who exactly was involved in the repair of the wording?

    It is pathetically weak of course, but somebody made an attempt.


  19. Definitely due to friendly LGBT activists at the heart of the Church, having for its “poster boy”,James Martin Jesuit priest! Beloved Pope Emeritus XVl knew the moral corruption when he stated that the Barque of Peter is in danger of capsizing!

  20. “They do not choose their homosexual condition” (CCC 1992) implies the inclination to deviate sexual behavior is natural, whereas the 1997 revision removes that implication. I wasn’t aware of the change and the posting online of the former 92 version. You’re correct. Thanks. It is apparently a purposeful change in line with the growing acceptance of homosexuality as a natural condition supporting Cardinal Marx’s position on “blessing” an intrinsically evil sexual practice. Apostasy is the trend with Vatican Hierarchy and their supporting cast of deviates either by practice belief or both. We face an enfolding reality of an Apostate Hierarchy at the Vatican and the severity of its repercussions. Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s Profession of Immutable Truths for prelates becomes ever more necessary. We should have similar for all faithful Catholics.

    • “Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s Profession of Immutable Truths for prelates becomes ever more necessary”.

      And we are told now that every single Bishop has received by email a copy and appeal to sign.

      They cannot say they didn’t know.

    • While I can understand having feelings toward another person, even of the same gender, procreation, the long traditional way, requires opposite/different genders.

      That yields the clearest instructions on a basic human level.

      I deal with attraction on a daily basis, at 63. That’s life.

      • As a married man of 72, I too still deal with attraction to women. For a man in the married state, a celibate priest, or anyone unfortunate enough to experience homosexual proclivities, the proper response, the only moral response, is control of the emotions by a well-formed conscience. Those who say that isn’t possible are liars.

        • That’s the point.

          And I don’t believe for a moment resisting temptation is tougher for homosexuals than for heterosexual men, either. and thus they “deserve” no special category nor special treatment in the CCC. It is actually quite scandalous IMO that they are so treated.

          • Rod, I wholeheartedly agree with you. As a married man and father of twins 6-year-olds, one of whom is autistic and epileptic, I can tell you that I struggle so, so much with the temptation to “let off steam” through online pornography. This temptation is something I struggle against every day, made worse by the fact that I became secretly addicted to it while still in middle school thanks to relatively unfettered access to the web by my all-too-trusting parents. Only through the grace of God, my daily Rosary and other prayers, online access to the traditional Mass, and much spiritual reading have I been able to resist the temptation to fall back into such terrible sin. And even then, I still find myself mentally struggling with impure desires, something for which I must frequently go to confession.

            So if I, with all that baggage, can resist such terrible temptations, then so can homosexuals. Period.

          • “So if I, with all that baggage, can resist such terrible temptations, then so can homosexuals. Period.”


            You just keep at it. NEVER GIVE UP. “But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved.” Mt 24:13. At 54, I don’t have the same temptations you have…mine are at Mass. Thank God for the chapel veil, the long skirts and the confession line.

            God knows the deal. HE KNOWS IT ALL.

            God’s blessing on you!

    • As I said here once before, Simone de Beauvoir, herself a sexual pervert, disagrees with the CCC 1992. She says in her 1949 book Le Deuxième Sexe that sodomites most certainly do choose this abominable practice. Normally, I don’t trust her words, but this is something she knows about from personal experience. We can at least hope the authors of the relevant part of the CCC DON’T know about sodomy from personal experience.

      • I read her works and her intimate J P Sartre. Both were free thinkers and believed whatever thoughts please us carry them out within the bounds of liberal amorality and convention. She’s right on choice. Though even Aquinas admits nature at times errs due to the tragedy of Original Sin. The human tragedy began then with Original Sin and the loss of clear interior spiritual direction from the intellect’s spiritual direction of our sensual desires. Thankfully forever and for all eternity that God didn’t abandon us to our self destructive bent and came to the rescue with His Son.

      • “We can at least hope the authors of the relevant part of the CCC DON’T know about sodomy from personal experience.”

        The relevant text seems very much to suggest that personal experience is exactly what motivated its inclusion. As an excuse. At least to me.

  21. Meanwhile,…
    – Archdiocese Teaches “Faithfulness” to Mortal Sin –
    “The archdiocese of Turin, Italy, will give “lessons of faithfulness” to gay couples during a so-called retreat during Lent, writes La Stampa (February 3).
    The retreat will take place on February 24/25 in a monastery of the Daughters of Wisdom. Father Gianluca Carrega, the responsible for a “pastoral care of homosexuals”, did not deny that double-rooms will be offered for those homosexuals who want to practice unnatural fornication in the monastery…

  22. “They do not choose their homosexual condition” – CCC 1994 edition. In other words, they are “born this way”. So,the filth and the infiltration started a while back.

  23. I found it by pressing the concordance button, but it doesn’t come up unless you look for it. Why did they even bother and who gave them authority to change anything?
    Someone is playing a game.

  24. In sum: The homosexualist position must be beaten down from the mountain peak that modern society has placed it and those who have attractions treated exactly like any other who has deeply perverted inclinations. no worse and no better.

    They are neither more tempted, nor more virtuous than others.

    Right now there is a concerted effort by some, with the tacit and I suspect mostly unknowing approval of many naive Catholics, to offer up some extra special level of place or status to “homosexuals”. Justice and mercy are justice and mercy. There is no special place in the Church for a “third sex”.

  25. The sad fact of the matter is that since the Vatican Two Bomb exploded in the heart of the Church, there has not been a Pope who has effectively moved to remove the sodomites from the seminary of the Curia or The Prelature or the Priesthood.

    Many, falsely, think that Bishop Emeritus Ratzinger did with his letter about sodomites and the seminaries but it has holes wide enough for any queer to squirm through.

    Why the Priesthood Will Continue

    To Become a “Gay” Profession

    Dale Vree

    Published in February 2006 – New Oxford Review

    We’ve been waiting nine long years for this document on homosexuals in the seminary. It has a long-winded title: “Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations With Regard to Persons With Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders” (hereafter “Concerning”).

    The document was obviously written by a committee – or many committees – and it intended to satisfy as many people as possible. But we are not satisfied, not in the least.

    Bear in mind that this document is about “discipline” (or shall we say ill-discipline).

    The most egregious sentence is that those “who practice homosexuality” (italics added) are “profoundly respected.” So we should have profound respect for those who commit homosexual acts, which are mortal sins. By that logic, we should have profound respect for fornicators, adulterers, and child molesters.

    On February 2, 1961, the Holy See promulgated a document called “Careful Selection and Training of Candidates for the States of Perfection and Sacred Orders,” signed by Pope John XXIII. The relevant section had one sentence on homosexuality: “Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with the evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious danger” (#30; italics added). That’s all that the new document, “Concerning,” needed to say.

    So how do we go from “evil tendencies” (i.e., orientation only) to having “profound respect” for homosexual acts in “Concerning”?

    Up until “Concerning,” the 1961 document was never abrogated and was still in force. Indeed, on May 16, 2002, the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments reiterated the policy: “Ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood of homosexual men or men with homosexual tendencies is absolutely inadvisable and imprudent and, from the pastoral point of view, very risky. A homosexual person, or one with a homosexual tendency is not, therefore, fit to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders.” It was published in the November-December issue of Notitiae, which means it is the position of the Holy See. Of course, this policy had been and continued to be violated by many bishops, major superiors, seminary rectors, and vocations directors.

    Earlier in 1997 the Congregation for Divine Worship issued a letter to the world’s bishops giving guidelines for candidates for the seminary. One stipulation was “sufficient affective maturity and a clearly masculine sexual identity.” In the recently released document, “Concerning,” the candidate “must reach affective maturity,” but there is no mention of having a clearly masculine sexual identity.

    By signing Concerning… Pope Benedict loses his conservative credentials

    And “Concerning” does repeal the previous policy. “Concerning” refers to “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” that supposedly would bar one from the seminary. Much consternation has been expressed about what “deep-seated” homosexual tendencies are. But “Concerning” does offer a contrast to deep-seated homosexual tendencies; it is “homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of atransitory problem – for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded” (italics added). In these cases, a homosexual whose homosexuality is “not yet superseded” can be admitted to the seminary. The contrast between “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” and “a transitory problem…not yet superseded” is pretty murky.

    The Catechism (#2357-2359) makes a clear distinction between homosexual “acts” and “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” (also referred to as an “inclination” or a “condition,” which in the U.S. is often called an “orientation”). But the Catechism does not speak of a “transitory problem.” So, what is a “transitory problem”?

    It turns out that a “transitory problem” includes homosexual acts. Zenon Cardinal Grocholewski, Prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education, which issued “Concerning” and is responsible for its implementation, gave an interview to Vatican Radio on November 29, 2005. Speaking of “transitory problems,” he said: “For example, an uncompleted adolescence, some kind of curiosity; or perhaps accidental circumstances, a drunken state, maybe particular circumstances like a person who was imprisoned for many years. In these cases, homosexual acts do not come from a [deeply] rooted tendency…. These acts are done because one wants to obtain some sort of advantage…. These acts…do not constitute an obstacle to seminary admission or to holy orders” (italics added; translation from the Italian provided by Rocco Palmo).

    The National Catholic Register had an interview with Cardinal Grocholewski (Dec. 11-17, 2005), where he explained what “transitory problems” are. He said basically the same things he said in the Vatican Radio interview, but added: “It may have been about pleasing a superior or someone he knows, or to earn money.” And in aRegister news story (same issue), transitory problems might involve “experiences that occurred under the influence of alcohol, drugs or coercion, Cardinal Grochelewski [sic] said” (italics added). The neocon Register registered no objection to any of this, not even in its Editorial in the same issue.

    This certainly opens up a can of worms. So you can be in jail for “many years” and commit homosexual acts, and still you can be admitted to the seminary. You can commit homosexual acts in a “drunken state” or under the influence of illegal “drugs,” and that’s O.K. You can commit homosexual acts “to obtain some sort of advantage,” and that’s O.K. You can “please” a superior or someone else, and that’s O.K. You can commit homosexual acts to earn money — which would include being a “gay” male prostitute — and that’s O.K. Good golly, Miss Molly, it’s a free-for-all!

    Never mind homosexual acts; do we want priests who have been “imprisoned for many years,” who are druggies, who sell their bodies (and their souls) for money? This is hideous in and of itself.

    Moreover, any candidate for the seminary could say his problem with homosexuality is not “deep-seated” and is only a “transitory problem.” Nothing will change with regard to admitting homosexuals into the seminary.

    Even if a seminarian’s homosexuality isn’t “deep-seated,” it will likely become deep-seated when he is placed in an all-male environment for five to eight years, and sleeping in bedrooms with men. Putting homosexuals in an all-male environment is what’s called “an occasion of sin,” that is, it leads to deep-seated temptations. You might as well put heterosexual men in the convent or a nunnery for five to eight years, and let them sleep in bedrooms with girls and women, and see how long they remain chaste.

    Even homosexual tendencies (without committing the act) are considered by the Church to be “objectively disordered” (Catechism, #2358). What is objectively disordered inclines one to commit an intrinsic moral evil, in the case of homosexuality, a mortal sin. Just one lapse by a seminarian or priest, and he’s blackmailable forever. Just as many bishops and cardinals are now, which goes a long way to explain why we have this ridiculous document, “Concerning.” At least nine bishops have had to retire because of homosexual acts, and it wasn’t because their brother bishops exposed them.

    Under a “transitory problem,” the new document, “Concerning,” says the problem “must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate [which precedes being a priest by about one year].” And Cardinal Grocholewski reiterated this. So how does a seminary make sure about that? Put seminarians under house arrest – and in solitary confinement – for three years? Of course not. This three-year rule would be so easy to fake.

    The 1961 document was signed by the “liberal” Pope John XXIII. “Concerning” was signed by Pope Benedict XVI, supposedly a “conservative.” With his new policy, Benedict has forfeited his conservative credentials. Benedict has given away the store.

    Moreover, “Concerning” says, “The call to orders is the personal responsibility of the Bishop or the major superior.” It is obvious that nothing will change, for many bishops and many major superiors (along with their rectors and vocations directors) are the problem in the first place. They are the ones who have been admitting homosexuals into the seminary. Homosexuals represent about two percent of the male population and it is estimated that 25-50 percent of seminarians are homosexual, and in certain pink-palace seminaries the percentage is well beyond that.

    In response to “Concerning,” numerous bishops (including Bishop George Niederauer – more about him later) and numerous major superiors and seminary rectors have stated that they will continue to do what they’ve been doing – i.e., admitting homosexuals. And who can blame them? For “Concerning” has no teeth. As Mao said, it’s a “paper tiger.”

    According to a news story in The New York Times (Sept. 15, 2005), Fr. Thomas Reese, S.J., the former Editor-in-Chief of America, said that “with the shortage of priests, the church can hardly afford to dismiss gay seminarians.” And that is exactly what happened. Fr. Donald Cozzens, a former seminary rector, said in The Changing Face of the Priesthood that “the priesthood is or is becoming a gay profession.” And it will continue to be or become a “gay” profession, thanks to “Concerning.”

    Bad appointments … Above, Archbishop Levada, a past of cover-ups for homosexual and pedophile priests. Below, homosexual-friendly Niederauer named Archbishop of San Francisco

    The Vatican forgot – or maybe it didn’t care – that with so many homosexual seminarians (even in some conservative orders), many heterosexual, manly men will not apply for the seminary. And those who do enter often drop out, or, if they don’t keep quiet about the “gay” culture in the seminary, they are kicked out.

    Moreover, a celibate and chaste heterosexual priest gives up marriage and family, which is a huge sacrifice, while a celibate and chaste homosexual priest gives up what is “objectively disordered,” which inclines one to commit a mortal sin.

    Then there is the question of pedophilia. According to the John Jay Report, 81 percent of priest sex-abuse victims were boys. As of June 2005, the known settlements for pedophilia (the large majority of cases being pederasty) total $1.06 billion. Church property has been sold to pay the settlements. Dioceses have declared bankruptcy. And victims have committed suicide and otherwise have had their lives ruined.

    Brian W. Clowes and David L. Sonnier did a comprehensive study called “Child Molestation by Homosexuals and Heterosexuals” (Homiletic & Pastoral Review,May 2005). Among other things, they report that: (1) “Homosexual activists Karla Jay and Allen Young revealed in their 1979 Gay Report [Simon and Schuster] that 73% of all homosexuals…preyed on adolescent or younger boys,” and (2) while homosexuals represent about two percent of the male population, according to the Archives of Sexual Behavior (vol. 29, no. 5, 2000), “around 25-40% of men [who are] attracted to children prefer boys.” If you want pedophilia, notably pederasty, to continue in the priesthood, keep ordaining homosexuals.

    According to the Washington Post (Nov. 23, 2005), neocon Brian Saint-Paul, the new Editor of Crisis, greeted the new document, “Concerning,” with “satisfaction.” The Post quoted him: “The Vatican has made a wise decision to come down in the middle of the road on this dispute.” Really now?

    William Donohue of the Catholic League, also a neocon, greeted “Concerning” with satisfaction. According to John L. Allen Jr.’s online “The Word From Rome” (Nov. 25, 2005), Donohue “welcomed the document’s nuance.” Said Donohue: “The Vatican is prudent not to have an absolute ban on admission of homosexuals to the priesthood….” (This is not unexpected, for Donohue appears to be soft on homosexuality. See the articles by Michael S. Rose in our Dec. 2005 issue and by Maria Briggs in our May 2005 issue. Donohue has also defended Fr. Marcial Maciel of the Legionaries of Christ from charges of pederasty.)

    This document, “Concerning,” is Pope Benedict’s defining moment, and he flubbed it. Likewise, his appointment of William Levada to be Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was the most important appointment Benedict would make, and he flubbed that too. Then there was Benedict’s cordial, high-profile, four-hour-long meeting with dissident theologian Hans Küng. Editorials in the National Catholic Reporter (Oct. 14, 2005) hailed this meeting as “refreshing indeed,” “the importance of [this] symbol can’t be far from anyone’s imagination,” and it “sets a positive example about how leaders can emphasize things that unite us….” An Editorial in Our Sunday Visitor (Nov. 20, 2005) chimed in saying: “Pope Benedict has shown himself to be a uniter rather than a divider.” But how do you reconcile the irreconcilable? We prefer what Jesus said: “Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division” (Lk. 12:51).

    Colleen Carroll Campbell of the neocon Ethics and Public Policy Center praised Benedict’s soft image in Our Sunday Visitor (Oct. 23, 2005). She said it was predicted that there would be “theological crackdowns” under Benedict. However, she is pleased to say: “His pastoral side has come to the fore as he swiftly reached out to Protestant, Orthodox, Jewish and Muslim clergy…and hosted his archrival Father Küng at Castel Gandolfo for a friendly chat in September…. Through his spokesman, Pope Benedict praised Father Küng’s efforts to promote dialogue with other religions….”

    In the NOR’s June 2005 editorial, we gave “Three Cheers” for Benedict. So far, that Editorial has turned out to be an embarrassment. If the Pope can dialogue with arch-dissenter Küng, then it would seem that dissent is legitimate.

    The latest outrage is Benedict’s appointment of Bishop George Niederauer to be Archbishop of San Francisco. Niederauer is clearly “gay”-friendly. He pastored a parish in West Hollywood with a large “gay” congregation, where he said that homosexuals are “wonderful.” As Bishop of Salt Lake City, he opposed a constitutional ban on same-sex “marriage.” He denies that there is a link between homosexual priests and the molestation and rape of boys. He helped found the Coalition of Concerned Religious Leaders in Utah, which supports “tolerance” for homosexuals. Topping it off, he has been praised by Sam Sinnett, head of Dignity-USA, and Francis DeBernardo, head of New Ways Ministry – both groups being comprised of proud “gay” and lesbian Catholics.

    The cover-up for Legionary founder Fr. Maciel continues

    At this rate, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s investigation of Fr. Maciel for multiple acts of pederasty on his seminarians will likely vanish into thin air. With “cover-up” Levada at the helm of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and with Benedict failing to uphold the 1961 document and basically endorsing the status quo regarding homosexuals in the priesthood, we cannot expect that the Vatican will do anything about the Maciel case.

    In Karl Keating’s E-Letter (March 8, 2005), he noted that for 26 years of the John Paul papacy, of which Ratzinger was the doctrinal watchdog for 24 years, only 24 people were disciplined. Keating comments: “That is fewer than one per year!… The Catholic Church boasts 1.1 billion members. This means that, on average, over the last quarter century, the Vatican has disciplined only one out of a billion members per year. This is about as close to zero as you can get. Is there any social, commercial, or governmental organization that disciplines such a small percentage of its people?… If the Church had the kind of inquisitorial bureaucracy that its critics imagine, the Vatican would be disciplining 24 people each week…. However you look at it, 24 cases in 26 years is…laughable.” It appears that Ratzinger (now Benedict) is not thePanzerkardinal after all, not God’s Rottweiler.

    When Ratzinger became Pope, we orthodox Catholics were ecstatic. But it’s likely that Benedict’s papacy will be very unpleasant – even bitter, since we had such high hopes.

    Yes, Virginia, there is a Lavender Mafia in the Church, and it goes all the way to the Vatican, and Pope Benedict will do nothing about it

    • Well said.

      In particular, the Church leadership’s total refusal to provide regular discipline of clergy has demonstrated that same leadership’s commitment to promote heresy and hideous immorality.

      Yes, they do.

      “Accessory to Another’s Sin
      I. By counsel II. By command III. By consent IV. By provocation V. By praise or flattery VI. By concealment VII. By partaking VIII. By silence IX. By defense of the ill done”

    • “It appears that Ratzinger (now Benedict) is not thePanzerkardinal after all, not God’s Rottweiler.
      When Ratzinger became Pope, we orthodox Catholics were ecstatic. But it’s likely that Benedict’s papacy will be very unpleasant – even bitter, since we had such high hopes.” So, I read otherwise before. After reading your post I checked and found this at this link:

      “Pope Benedict XVI defrocked nearly 400 priests in just two years, for molesting children, according to a document obtained by the Associated Press.

      The statistics for 2011 and 2012 show a dramatic increase over the 171 priests removed in 2008 and 2009, when the Vatican first provided details on the number of priests who have been defrocked. Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi confirmed that the figures were accurate.

      Prior to that, the Vatican had only publicly revealed the number of alleged cases of sexual abuse it had received and the number of trials it had authorized.”

      This confirms what I have known before

  26. The actual german version of Nr. 2358 CCC in addition shows a discrepance in the first sentence too:
    2358 “Eine nicht
    geringe Anzahl von Männern und Frauen sind homosexuell veranlagt. Sie haben
    diese Veranlagung nicht selbst gewählt; für die meisten von ihnen stellt sie
    eine Prüfung dar” (

    In my hardcover edition of CCC dated 2005 the following is written:
    2358: “Eine nicht geringe Anzahl von Männern und Frauen haben tiefsitzende homosexuelle Tendenzen. Diese Neigung, die objektiv ungeordnet ist, stellt für die meisten von ihnen eine Prüfung dar.”

    The former form “tiefsitzende homosexuelle Tendenzen” (“Deepseated homosexual tendencies”) has been replaced by “Veranlagung” = “disposition”. This modification in the online-form has to be quite new and I don’t know if it was written in the german 1994 edition.

  27. I don’t know, maybe I’m missing something here, but in the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” on the Vatican website (, the relevant sentences in paragraph 2357 still read: “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered’. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

  28. If they have de facto banned the Traditional Mass, and even the rite of ordination, how are they not going to change this?


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...