The Mysterious Case of CCC 2358 on objectively disordered homosexual inclinations

This is an unusual post.

First, I must preface this that some one sent me information about this recently, but I can’t remember who it was, I’ve looked for the email.  So, someone found this before I did.  I would like to give full credit for the discovery, but I will have to wait until this post shakes the tree.   [Check out the comments.  Some good people have found my probable source.  Although the information might have arrived through a third party.  Anyway, credit where credit is due!]

Next, the change to the Catechism of the Catholic Church 2267 on capital punishment was deeply troubling.

Briefly: It was not troubling because it had to do with capital punishment.  That concerns contingent moral choices about a tiny class of criminals.   It was troubling because it introduced less clarity into a reference work whose very purpose is to bring greater clarity.  The change to 2267 says that capital punishment is “inadmissible” which contradicts the fact that the Church has always taught that it is permitted.  The basis for the change rests on the claim that social conditions have changed.  It also rests on a claim for the protection of the human dignity of the condemned.  However, while 2267 made a global statement about capital punishment being “inadmissible”, social conditions across the globe are uneven.  Also, some might argue that keeping a person in a box like a rat for her entire life without the mortal urgency to reflect and repent is less humane than setting a date.  After all, the Church’s secondary focus considers the exigencies of this life, but her primary focus is salvation of souls and eternal life in heaven.   One could argue that 2267 does not say that capital punishment is “intrinsically evil” which would be a very clear contradiction of the Church’s perennial teaching.  It only says “inadmissible” which, though strong, isn’t the same.  Hence, the change to 2267 is troubling.

It is troubling for another reason.

If this paragraph on capital punishment, then why not other paragraphs?

Capital punishment is not popular in many wealthy countries.  Therefore, the changers of 2267 could relay, fairly safely, on support for the change (by those who didn’t bother to think through the ramifications of changing some teaching in the CCC).

But.. think about this.  The change would also be welcomed by those who think a great deal about the ramifications of changing the CCC.

Furthermore, I found the reasoning in the Letter to Bishops that accompanied the change to the text of 2267 could be used for other issues as well.  You can, for example, substitute some terms and, as I did, argue along the same lines for a change to the Church’s teaching about same-sex marriage.

Thus, I arrive at the deeper point of this post.

Was the change to 2267 was a trial balloon?

Perhaps somebody who really aims at a more controversial change to the CCC is using this as a test case.  A test case or a softening up of the terrain?  A test case, a softening, and an invitation for calls to change other teachings in the CCC, a creation of astro turf?

“But Father! But Father!”, you libs are surely keening as you twist in your shorts, “That … that… that’s loopy even for you, you… you blood-thirsty, xenophobic, homophobic, patriarchal troglodyte.  Doctrine inevitably evolves… er um…develops and, no matter what you blather about ‘always and everywhere and everyone’ and ‘in the same sense’ – ha ha! – you can’t stop it.  It is an inevitable path!  This is the law of history which result in the final glory of societal transformation and peace on earth!   And you have no evidence whatsoever that there is anything going on here other than the loving and wonderful concern for the present life of El Pueblo on the part of those who surround Francis like a phalanx of.. of… a cohort… ummm… a bouquet of … of… …. YOU HATE VATICAN II!”

You know.  You are right.  I don’t have evidence to clinch it.

I do have this.  And I repeat that someone else found this before I posted.  I’d like to give credit.

If you do a search for “Catechism of the Catholic Church” you will be offered the official site for the text of the CCC.

Say you want to learn about the Church’s teaching on homosexuality.   Hence, you scroll down to the section on the Sixth Commandment.  Then you click on the section on “The Vocation to Chastity”.

That item has this link:

That is the standard format of every other link to the various sections of the CCC on the Vatican’s site.  Note especially that before the P85.HTM there are 2 underscores.

The first thing that strikes you is that this page seems to be “broken” in a couple of respects.  The images for the logo of the Holy See is broken, as are the back and up arrows.  Also, the background is white, whereas the normal background is that dreadful Paul VI Beige that has plagued us since the sites inception.

“Okay,”, you say”.  What does the text say?  That’s the important part.

Here is the text of the paragraph that concerns homosexuality and chastity.  My emphases:

2358 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. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

The text says that the inclination is “objectively disordered”.

Now comes the really creepy part.

Above, I alerted you to the fact that the link had 2 underscores.

What happens if you remove one of those underscores and then refresh?

Look at this!  The Paul VI Beige background is back.  The logo and arrows are back.  The text, this times, as links for all the vocabulary.

Link a term, like “chastity” and you go to a page that shows every use in the catechism.  Spiffy.

But that is not the point.

Scroll down to that paragraph on homosexuality that we looked at above.

What does the text say?  That’s the important part.

2358 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. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

The text is different.


2358 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. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2358 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. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

What on earth is going on with this?

On one page of the Vatican’s site, the official link, is the text about homosexuality being “objectively disordered”, but buried… hidden behind that page is another version that says something different.   First, the problem is that it says something different.  Next, the problem is that is says something extremely slippery.

Jesuit homosexualist activist James Martin has said that the teaching in the CCC about homosexuals is cruel.  For example, regarding Martin’s controversial book:

The real purpose of this book is to advocate for a relaxation of the Church’s teaching that sodomy is gravely immoral and that any attraction to commit acts of sodomy is an objective disorder in one’s personality.

Father Martin rejects the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that the “inclination” to “homosexual tendencies” is “objectively disordered” (2358). He writes:

“The phrase relates to the orientation, not the person, but it is still needlessly hurtful. Saying that one of the deepest parts of a person — the part that gives and receives love — is ‘disordered’ in itself is needlessly cruel” (pp. 46-47).

So, what would Martin change in CCC 2358 if he could?  This is what he says at Jesuit-run American Magazine.  My emphases:

To that end, it’s important to state that in the eyes of the church simply being gay or lesbian is not a sin—contrary to widespread belief, even among educated Catholics. That may be one of the most poorly understood of the church’s teachings. Regularly I am asked questions like, “Isn’t it a sin to be gay?” But this is not church teaching. Nowhere in the catechism does it say that simply being homosexual is a sin. As any reputable psychologist or psychiatrists will agree, people do not choose to be born with any particular sexual orientation.

But when most people ask questions about “church teaching” they are referring not to this question, but to restrictions on homosexual, or same-sex, activity as well as the prohibition on same-sex marriage. Homosexual acts are, according to the catechism, “intrinsically disordered” and “contrary to natural law.” (The bulk of the catechism’s attention to homosexuality is contained in Nos. 2357-59.) Consequently, the homosexual orientation (and by extension, any orientation other than heterosexuality) is regarded as “objectively disordered.”

Martin has said that the CCC should say something like “differently ordered”.

What’s wrong with that?  What’s wrong with saying, in the Catechism, that homosexual inclinations are “not chosen”?  That they are merely “different”.  Those approaches suggest that homosexual acts are be natural behavior for “differently ordered” people whom, perhaps, God made to be homosexual.

Here is an interesting point.  Martin has tweeted on this very paragraph and this very discrepancy of text!

Did you get that?   It is not hard to check old editions of the Catechism.  However, let’s think about this.

First, why would the older, abolished text be preserved and why would the newer text be on a broken or incomplete page?

Those who strongly oppose the application of capital punishment will now insist that we have to accept the change to CCC 2267.    The text was corrected.  Right?

However, the text of CCC 2358 was corrected to say that homosexual inclinations are objectively disordered.  Right?   Don’t those who are homsexualist activists have to accept that teaching rather than call for yet another change?

John Paul II called the CCC “sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms.”

Did you get that last part?   The CCC can be a basis of local catechisms.  The Bishop of Libville is free to teach something different from the Bishop of Black Duck… I guess.  That’s been the result of Amoris laetitia chapter 8, as well, even in the cases of conferences of bishops.

I ask a couple questions.

Could someone explore other sections of the online CCC to see if this same phenonenon exists?

Is there a change that this phenomenon in CCC 2358 presages a change to the Catechism about the intrinsically disordered nature of homosexual inclinations and acts?

Was the change to 2267 a rehearsal?

BTW… the homosexualist group New Ways Ministry has already connected the dots between the change to the teaching on the death penalty and now changing teaching on homosexuality.

I tried the double underscore trick on CCC 2267 and there is nothing unusual.  Also, the unchanged text is still on the Vatican site.

And with the single underscore:

It could be that no change will be made until the new text appears in Acta Apostolicae Sedis.  Right?


About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Sin That Cries To Heaven, The Coming Storm, The Drill and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Lurker 59 says:


    I did an analysis of CCC 2358 and its development over 1.5 decades ago as part of another issue. It is buried on the hard drive of a defunct computer.

    A good chunk of well-meaning Catholics who were catechized on the 1992 Edition of the Catechism honestly thinks that God made homosexuals that way. It is a huge problem lurking out there. You can spin the 1992 wording to say that God made people homosexual or that one didn’t choose to be homosexual in the same way that one doesn’t choose which vices they are tempted by. A very good friend from both a conservative diocese and parish was catechized to believe that God made homosexuals that way based on the 1992 Edition, and that person’s experience was very common.

    The 1997 editio typica, and the subsequent vernacular revisions did cause a major issue and there does exist a rejection of the modification. That the Vatican webpage is sitting there waiting to be reverted back is a prime example of that lurking rejection.

    One of the issues with having a global Church is that the catechetical needs are not uniform. Some need milk, some meat. The catechetical needs of Maronite Catholics are also different than Roman Catholics — different concerns different expressions of the same Faith. Hense the idea of a “universal” catechism that was to serve as the basis for localized catechisms. That is the line of attack that the heterodox are using in their attempt to “officialize” heterodoxy. It is not a secret but very well out in the open in documents that the modernization is accomplished through the local catechisms while at the same time decrying that recourse to the universal catechism by the orthodox is “not pastoral” and doesn’t reflect “local conditions”.

    Going forward, I expect the Universal Catechism to be plasticized and to become more of an expression of political goals (as Card. Ladaria said as justification to the change to 2267.)

  2. Daddio says:

    Well, it is true, at least.
    They do not choose their homosexual condition.

    I’d propose a combination of both statements, if anyone felt a change was absolutely necessary.
    “They do not choose their objectively disordered homosexual inclination”

  3. Malta says:

    There are so many things to be commented on re: this excellent post. My Spiritual Advisor (who knows five languages, and was a corporate lawyer before becoming a priest, btw.) agrees with me vis a vis Our Lady’s Message at Akita, Japan: “there will be bishop against bishop,” and if humanity doesn’t change its ways “fire will fall from the sky, killing a great part of humanity.” Not to sound prophetic, but just going of Our Lady’s words, I think this is imminent. I know that a lot of priests and bishops are really not happy with what the current Pope is doing, and subtle changes he is making to the perennial teachings of the Church.

    In regards to homosexuality; God does not make someone gay, which is a damnable sin, according to St. Paul.

  4. Ms. M-S says:

    The change to the catechism on capital punishment looks like a carefully planned push of the camel’s nose into the tent. In fact, if one looks around the tent one will see a few cute little stuffed camels already tucked here and there.

  5. Lurker 59 says:


    But some do. There are some who are not beset by such concupiscence, but later so choose to engage in such disorder and are so bound to sin.

    Some men might be tempted lust and not given in, while other men, having never been tempted, do so choose to engage in lust. Same with those engage in homosexuality.

    What is really needed, as with all sins, is a clear call to repentance and turning away from sin and the temptation to sin. You don’t get that in the current CCC here, one has to infer it. The Church does need to help those afflicted by sin and the temptation to sin, especially such a serious affront to God as homosexuality.

    Right now, there is a strong tendency to not respect those suffering, those tempted, and not afford them their human dignity because there is often an abject refusal to condemn the sin and free the sinner and the one affected by temptation from their spiritual oppression. Freeing those afflicted from their afflictions is what Christian mercy is — it is not mercy to make the affected “comfortable” in their sins. To do such is spiritual abuse.

    And we need to get rid of those engaging in spritual abuse, from the Mr. McCarricks, to rainbow bedazzled priest to legitimize sin.

  6. WVC says:

    This is “objectively” creepy.

    Good grief.

    I at least hope that when they publish this new disordered CCC, they choose a different color, like orange or maybe pink or why not rainbow colored? That way I can still make reference to the “big green book.”

  7. Ave Maria says:

    The pope confirmed Mr. Cruz in his homosexuality. But as a younger man he was abused by a priest and when a young person is thus abused, it turns something in the psyche and it is not uncommon for the victim to turn around and take up the unnatural lifestyle as well: NB: not “born this way”. So it was not a good thing for the pope to confirm the disorder in Mr. Cruz. The appointing of homosexual or those tolerant of same to high places–another one recently to oversee Vatican archives shows that this present pope is certainly open to moving forward on the “evolving” of Catholic teaching on this issue. The meeting of “families” and the youth sin-nod also seem to be leaning in this direction. All of this seems like a house of cards, once well cemented, is tumbling down and we have the job of remaining faithful amidst the ruins.

  8. Andrew says:

    For those who might have missed the point: in this case the online text contains two links instead of one. The difference is the double underline in front of P85 vs. the single underline: which gives you two similar but distinct links:


    One of the links gives the text of par. 2358 as it should read whereas the other link gives a different and false version of the same par. 2358.

    It is almost certain that someone out there with responsibility for creating this part of the website falsified the online version of the CCC text, par. 2358, perhaps in anticipation of a future change.

  9. Stephen says:

    If you look at any page on the Catechism, at the top there is a link “Click here to show the links to concordance”. This will take you the single underscore page for each section of the Catechism (including the one at issue). I don’t know if any of them show different text as yet, but I thought I’d point that out for anyone looking through.

  10. I have been asking myself: why the death penalty? That seems to me somewhat out of the blue.

    The theory of a trial balloon or dress rehearsal makes sense. So we should brace ourselves for even more and bigger detonations out of Rome.

  11. dcmike says:

    I’m fairly certain the single vs double underscore is an indication of the 1st vs 2nd editions of the CCC.

    I dusted off my paper copy of the 1st edition and par. 2358 has the “They do not choose their homosexual condition…” language in it.

  12. Joy65 says:

    God have mercy on us and on the whole world. May those who lead in your Catholic Church Lord lead with Your TRUTH and doing Your will—not their own. Mother Mary, all Holy Saints and Angels Please surround and protect Our One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church and all who serve in Her and belong to Her from satan and all his evil ways! Amen!

  13. Ivan says:

    About one year ago I was familiar with the differences in/between the English and Croatian versions of CCC2358. I was then, after reading one very troubling article ( impelled to find out more about the position of the Church about ‘those matters’,… and after that I wrote this (bellow) to my group of a few faithful Catholics fellas with whom I usually share a good/bad or unusual stuff concerning our Faith.
    Our latest very modern CCC says this:
    CCC 2358. English version – “This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.”
    Where the Croatian version says even this (!?):
    CCC 2358. Croatian version – “They do not choose their homosexual condition; that for most of them is a trial”
    I hope you have and use Baltimore’s, or Catechism of Trent!
    * * *
    The point is that I’ve checked also printed version of CCC in Croatian that I have at home, in which is stated: “They do not choose their homosexual condition; that for most of them is a trial” (CCC2358 on the page 579 of printed version of officially “Katekizam Katoli?ke Crkve” from Latin version 1994., published by the Croatian Bishops’ Conference with “Imprimi potest” of Commissione Interdicasteriale per il Catechismo della Chiesa Catholica Prot. N. XII/91C Roma, 6 luglio 1994., Joseph card. Ratzinger Praefcfectus
    (ISBN 953 – 6258-01-3)
    Translation and style: Glas Koncila, Zagreb 1994. HRVATSKA

    Another point must be that this kind of sneaky “changes” in de CCC, were done by ? not since 2013, and the changes went not just accidentally about “certain matters” in question of these days.
    It would be interesting to know what is the case of THIS same matter in other languages, and even more, – SINCE WHEN?!

  14. teomatteo says:

    One word comes to mind when i look back at all of it (synod on the family, comments this pope has made, the men(?) he has entrusted to do the Lord’s work). Diabolical. I pray I’m wrong.

  15. richiedel says:

    If the recent change on CCC 2267 were indeed a trial balloon, this is indeed troubling. Not only then was it a trial balloon to test the reaction to changing the Catechism, but it was also a trial balloon launched at a time when it conveniently took many people’s focus off the McCarrick scandal (remember that?)

    With Amoris Laetitia, the sexual act of the divorced and remarried was condoned by the opportunity to receive Communion.

    With the irregularities between the two versions of CCC 2358, the whole “After all, why not…God made me this way.” rationalization has been condoned.

    Makes you wonder what the synod on the “Youth” (which I expect to have just as much to do with the youth as the synod on the Family had to do with the family) has in store for us. I don’t think it would be a reach to suggest at this point that it will very likely be an opportunity for Church leaders to tell the youth how their main concern at this point in time has to do with all their brothers and sisters with SSA, and wouldn’t it be nice to enshrine this concern you have with an “updated” teaching on the matter, which we just happen to have already drafted?

    Based on the concerted pattern we are seeing with the loosening of sexual mores, it makes you wonder whether they will even then bother that time around to explain how such will have represented a natural development in the Church’s teachings on the matter, etc., etc.

    Meanwhile, any progress on dealing with this whole McCarrick situation? Anyone?

  16. Jann says:

    Hasn’t anyone looked at the preceeding paragraph ??? #2357 states everything that needs to be said most emphatically.:

    2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”141 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.

    The “old” #2358 only repeats that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. It is not necessary. to be repeated here. The “new” #2358 goes on from there in a more pastoral tone

  17. Pingback: The Death Penalty Monday Edition – Big Pulpit

  18. Someone please be the Garrigue says:

    The Internet Archive has a very useful resource, called the WayBack Machine, for looking at old versions of web sites.

    Here is the version of 3rd May 2005: “They do not choose their homosexual condition”

    The next snapshot, 7th January 2006, has “This inclination, which is objectively disordered, …”

    Looks like it took time for to pick up the new translation. Things move slowly in Rome. And in Eternal Rome they take an eternity.


  19. avemarya says:

    dcmike, that was my thought too. But I’m not so sure that is the case now. It actually looks like the edition on the Vatican website is mostly the first edition, with a few edits going towards the second edition, the ones I have found so far were the JPII edits, the one on homosexuality, 2297 on terrorism, 2368 and 2372 on birth control, and 2417 on animal experimentation. Also note that each of these are in the morality section, so my guess is that whoever made them wanted them to be quickly available. For the latter four, the changes were almost semantic, better stated, or stronger on orthodoxy. The website lists all the changes from the first to the second, but I am finding that most of these changes do not even appear in the Vatican’s online version.

    In each of the cases where you see 2nd edition wording, the change is made for both the single and double underscore htm. This leads me to think two possibilities. 1) The Vatican’s online version was tweaked largely for the edits made by JPII that seemed to have some morally significant differences in nuance, but the other stuff remained the same, and the homosexuality one differs not so much because of nefariousness but rather because of oversight/ human glitching. I don’t know much about htm, but my guess is that one version is dependent on the other, so if these texts don’t align, but the human who wrote the code was expecting them to align, then you will have glitches. 2) The tweaks were made, but then someone tweaked the homosexuality one back, with the agenda outlined by Fr. Z.

    Given the fact that this is mostly the first edition, I think 1) is more likely. Also, while you definitely have people with agendas, I think human lapses and coding errors (which I personally am prone to as an amateur programmer) are probably more reasonable. I’m not completely certain about this, but if I were impartial about it, that would be my guess.

  20. richiedel says:

    Hi, Jann,

    It seems to me that there is more to replacing “This inclination, which is intrinsically disordered…” with “They do not choose their homosexual condition” than to avoiding redundancy and taking on a more pastoral tone. “They do not choose their homosexual condition” is an affirmative assertion with quite a few connotations when it comes to analyzing the morality of homosexual acts. Taken to its extreme, one could very well use this assertion to say there is no such thing as a homosexual act being a mortal sin, since there would be no complete consent of the will (cf. CCC 1859), the individual’s not having “chosen” their homosexual condition. It’s not as if we haven’t recently seen such loophole-esque rationalization before when it comes to analyzing the morality of sexual acts (see Amoris laetitia, 304-306, esp. footnote 351; and subsequent discussion of how “Thomistic” such application of moral theology was, when it wasn’t: )

  21. Someone please be the Garrigue says:

    Further to my previous post:

    The Spanish version changed in March 2010.
    The Latin version had “Haec propensio, obiective inordinata, …” since at least 2001.

    The single vs. double underscore feature is one of those annoying habits web designers and software people have because they’re too scared to delete old files in case something goes wrong. You may even find other versions lying around with .old, .keep, .bak extensions or dates in the filename. Lots and lots of clutter.

  22. VP says:

    @richidel – The change to 2267 was a trial balloon. And doubt is introduced over 2358 just before the Youth Synod? Absolutely intentional – if it is not part of the formal agenda, it will at least be part of impromptu discussion or choreographed Q&A.

    The Magisterium of Mercy is built on loophole-esque rationalizations and the de facto denial of sin. “Make a mess,” indeed.

  23. Malta says:

    The gates of Christ’s church cannot be prevailed on, but satan’s fire is scorching them right now–and from prelates in His own Church. Very diabolical things afoot now.

  24. Malta says:

    Disgusting: “But just the story of Father Martin leads us directly to the World Meeting of Families. Father Martin was in fact invited as an official speaker to the Dublin appointment in a very clear attempt to get homosexual activity accepted within the family context. It is a subtle attempt to strike at the heart of the meaning of the family, a choice that has already created considerable controversy, but without any sign of repentance from Rome. Far from it: to the best of our knowledge, preparations are underway to include a situation in which different “types” of families will be given space during the meeting with the Pope.” (source:

  25. Ultrarunner says:

    As an IT professional responsible for the administration of code repositories for hundreds of developers over a 10 year period of time in a multi-billion dollar company, here’s some insight I can offer about the two different Vatican website files noted in your article.

    1. Because they are visible to the public, both files are by definition production code deployments that were pushed to a production server. This is very important point.
    2. The change in the verbiage noted between the two files would have been part of a formal written change request that was approved by management that was then received and completed by a developer. Again, a very important point.
    3. The renaming convention for the files relating to the single/double underscores is not a best practice with respect to versioned code and it is in fact a well known bad practice for code versioning. However, this practice is frequently seen when fast changes to production code are necessary to implement a fix, or anticipated by the developer as a change that will be given final approval in the near future.

    So here are the two most frequent scenarios where this kind of anomaly is seen in the real world that most often explains the two different file names:

    Current production code on the production website, which is visible to the public, is versioned code. Let’s call the current version 5.2.0 During 5.3.0 development, which is the next version of code to be deployed to production, it’s not live yet, a developer would have received a formal change request that was then incorporated into the 5.3.0 development code. The change would have looked something like this:

    Project: Vatican_Prod_Web_Site
    Build 5.3.0 Dev
    Change: Replace “This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial” with “They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial.”

    Eventually, the 5.3.0 version is tested and approved for deployment by management. After deployment, the developer gets a call from his manager (probably after hours) saying the verbiage in a file is wrong, and he needs to rollback to the previous version of the file. At this point, the need for speed is paramount because the verbiage is live on the web server. So the developer immediately goes in and renames the bad file in the development environment. He would add or subtract an underscore that doesn’t conform to the naming standard which is a fast way to make the patch. He then gets the original 5.2.0 versioned file and copies it to the 5.3.0 repository for the file rollback. This is the original unaltered file that doesn’t contain any changes. The 5.3.0 version is then tested and rebuilt as version 5.3.1 before a speedy approval by management and it’s then deployed to production. Problem solved. The old, renamed file remains on the production server as a monument to the emergency process without any links to it.

    Another scenario is that the developer received the change request for the 5.3.0 build and he made the change in development. The code hasn’t been rolled out to production yet. After he makes the change, he gets another change request to rollback to the original verbiage. Rather than branching his code, he just changes the name of the file and copies the file from 5.2.0 and the verbiage is back to what is currently on production without any changes. This is frequently done when it is possible the change could still be rolled out but waiting for management to make up its mind on which way to go. The developer is positioned to quickly make the change once management finally makes up their mind and there is no link to it. The point is he wants to keep the file because he believes the change may occur in the near future and he maintains a quick way to make it by just renaming the files or just doing a copy/paste with the changed verbiage. If the change isn’t likely, ie, he was told the change would never be made, the file would be simply deleted by the developer. Again, maintaining this file is not a best practice but this is what frequently happens in the real world that demands rapid change.

    So these are the two most likely scenarios.

    At the end of the day, however, the verbiage didn’t just appear out of nowhere. It was put there under management direction by a developer that rolled it out to a production server. As such, it offers insight into the coordinated web content development practices at the Vatican. In practice, it’s likely the new verbiage will show up in a future version, it’s just not ready to be rolled out because it hasn’t been publicly announced. At the very least, it’s a change that IT managers were told to pull the trigger on at some point so they had a development team code it, which means its a change that’s been given consideration from above.

  26. ChrisP says:

    Drain the swamp.

  27. Elizabeth D says:

    I looked for another change between the first and second catechism version and found the current with two underscores:
    versus former, with just one underscore:

    The change was in #2483 about lying.

  28. CCC 2358 is not a Francis change. [I didn’t say it was.] The text as in it now in intra-text dates from John Pual II’s time and lasted through Benedict XVI.

    The current mistake has been present in the intra-text version since at least 2004 (oldest found on the Wayback Machine) and likely even before then.

    I’d chalk this up to incompetent Vatican website managers or possibly some issues in the curia. [A probabl explanation.] This is not a Pope Francis changing the Catechism issue. [I didn’t say it was.]

    Just before sending, I noticed “Someone please be the Garrigue” also said something similar noting that the change to the plain text was much later than the Vatican made the change.

  29. avemarya says:

    I clicked on those and they give the same passage, but they are both from the first edition of the CCC. Are you seeing something different?

  30. Elizabeth D says:

    Okay, hang on, the difference between the one underscore and two underscores is NOT an un-linked page, actually you toggle between them for any page in the catechism. by clicking at the top to turn the concordance links on or off. Mostly the page texts match. On the homosexuality page indeed they do not match. Seemingly it was poorly updated when the catechism texts were updated and the concordance links version remained the old version. Where is the evidence that this is recent meddling as opposed to old incompetence back from 12 years ago?

  31. Benedict Joseph says:

    “It was troubling because it introduced less clarity into a reference work whose very purpose is to bring greater clarity. ”
    This phrase about the Catechism is analogous to the entire state of Roman Catholicism in the post-conciliar epoch and now finally in the Bergoglian epoch it is undeniable. What we have for decades refused to acknowledge is what was to be expected and is logically transpiring before our eyes. The shell game happened fifty-six years ago — we are only catching on to the reality of what happened now.
    It is mortifying to acknowledge, but it is true.
    We were tricked.
    The only way to correct what has transpired is to call it by its name and correct it.
    At this moment as much as I want to be angry with what is happening and those engineering the deconstruction, we closed our eyes, we shut our mouths, we plugged our ears. We let it happen — good, faithful — even saintly wise men and women let it happen. What has happened and is virulently transpiring can no longer be masked for anything but what it is. It is not of Christ. It is not Catholic.

  32. JeromeThomas says:

    My methodology might be faulty, but having downloaded both the double-underscored version and the single-underscored version from the Vatican webpage, this was the ONLY change between the two sets of catechisms that wasn’t simply a change in punctuation (one space vs. two spaces, for instance). In every other case where there’s a difference between 1st Edition CCC and 2nd Edition (as mentioned by avemarya), the Vatican’s website follows the 1st Edition.

    For example, in paragraph 708 (found on and, both versions contain the phrase “God gave the letter of the Law”, while in the 2nd edition, the phrase reads “God gave the Law”.

    Whatever else is going on here, the edit to CC 2358 was done manually.

  33. Vincent says:

    Thanks to the tips from “Someone please be the Garrigue” up above, I’ve just spent the last hour looking through the wayback machine and the Vatican website.

    It seems, as Ultrarunner suggests, that this resulted from a change which was assumed and then rolled back (the links to the picture appear to be broken because it is sitting in a folder called “ENG0015/__P85_file/” i.e. a saved copy of the original __P85 page. The concordance version has never been changed (i.e. the _P85 page). Getting slightly techy, the impression I get is that the document has never been recompiled – i.e. they’re manual edits, as I don’t believe a decent web developer would push a change only to the non-concordance version (given the concordance is the heavy lifting bit which would require software / markdown to make it work?)

    Anyway. To the point (apologies, it’s so late it’s early over here in the UK):
    The interrogation of the wayback machine tells me that the __P85 page mysteriously broke between August 25 and October 21, 2014.

    What happened between August and October 2014?

    an event called the: “Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops”. Quoting from one article about the results of that particular episode in Church history: “This represents a revolutionary change in how the church addresses the LGBT community,” writes the Rev. James Martin in the Catholic magazine America. “Nowhere in the document are such terms as ‘intrinsically disordered,’ ‘objectively disordered,’


    My best guess is that it was assumed that the pre-synod synod would provide an amended text which would then be pushed to the website. When that went .. slightly wrong .. the previous, downloaded backup, version was just placed straight back onto the site.

    Of course, not doing the job properly suggests that it was still assumed it would be temporary…

  34. It looks to be mostly a case of incompetence, a not infrequent phenomenon in administration in the catholic Church in generally, and regarding the Vatican website in particular. A few notes:
    The second edition of the catechism (revised according to the official Latin Text) is currently online at the address:
    Searching for that address on the internet archive, one finds that page recorded as having been online on August 25, 2002:
    Browsing the archived Vatican website from that point (up to table of contents:, then click on the English catechism:
    one finds that the text of the catechism had been, by August 2002, updated to reflect the second edition revised in accordance with the Latin text.

    Apparently, for some reason, which could be either a technical reason such as overwriting the current file with a older, backup file, or someone’s thoughtless decision (“hey! this version doesn’t have those neat concordance links! Let’s put the other one back!”), the catechism text linked from the main site was at some later date changed back to the first, unrevised text.
    As my memory servers me, a teacher quoted the old text of the catechism in a handout for his students in 2006, so probably by that point the reversion back to the unrevised text had been made.
    It would be possible via the Internet Archive to determine more exactly when that was done or happened.

  35. Joe in Canada says:

    I’m more inclined to think it’s just the Keystone Cops running the website.
    Can the pope ‘disappear’ the document from which the phrase “objectively disordered” came from?

  36. RAve says:

    On 12/8/2016, Pope Francis approved a Vatican document, ‘The Gift of the Priestly Vocation’, [1] that affirmed and included this quote from the Vatican’s 2005 ‘Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations’ [2]:

    “The Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called ‘gay culture.’ Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women.”

    If those who “support the so-called ‘gay culture’… in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women”, why did the Holy Father appoint Rev. James Martin a Consulter of the Secretariat for Communication [3], and why is he still serving in that role as of 8/6/3018? [4] What is more, why does Martin still have priestly faculties?

    Martin consistently and very publicly supports ‘gay culture’. When talking to a ‘gay’ man about the sign of peace at Mass, Martin said: “I hope in ten years you will be able to kiss your partner or soon to be your husband.”[5] Regarding the big ‘gay pride’ parade weekend in New York City, Martin was very supportive, saying “To my LGBT friends: Have a fun Pride Weekend. Take pride, and feel joy…”, and he even wrote a Newsday op-ed piece for the occasion. [6] The common understanding in Western culture is that “Pride parades (also known as pride marches, pride events, and pride festivals) are events celebrating lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) culture and pride.” [7]

    In light of recent revelations, I am wondering why we do not politely and respectfully insist that Pope Francis exercise his ministry in accord with his own stated policy, thus that he immediately remove Martin as a consulter and remove his priestly faculties.


  37. ChesterFrank says:

    Catholicism Pure and Simple re-posted your post. In their comment box someone gave the reference you might have lost :

    Also, the news papers have been mentioning that the progressive Governor of New York is siding with Pope Francis on this. Other papers have linked this change in the Catechism with something else that the pope said. Pope Francis said that people who check to see if a baby is healthy or perfect enough o be born , are following the practices of the Nazi’s. I wonder if the pope knows that some are messing with his website? I wonder what his reaction might be? Do you think they have permission? There is a lot of speculation going on.

  38. s i says:

    I first saw it on a youtube video on 1P5:
    He since updated the comments to say “UPDATE: It looks like the language we found was from the 1994 Catechism. Why it’s still there is anyone’s guess:

    Indeed, my 1994 Catechism has the old language.

  39. JesusFreak84 says:

    Whether the differences are malicious or simply webmaster incompetence, it’s an argument for having a dead-tree copy of the CCC. We’re not yet so 1984 that we’re dumping old Catechisms down the Memory Hole at Minitru.

  40. Windy City Irish Pollack says:

    Greetings FR. Z,

    You have no idea of the high esteem and consummate respect in which I hold you personally and your erudite, orthodox ministry via this blog of yours. I have been a regular reader – not a commentator – for years, and I greatly admire your charity, patience and fidelity in the midst of chaos. I admire those qualities I see in others which I myself do not possess, and so, once again, you have my utmost respect.

    Having said that, I must ask that you pray for me, as I apparently do not possess these heroic virtues and find myself on the precipice of despair. This latest outrage (the capital punishment teaching) and the way it was introduced – a sure harbinger of forthcoming more substantive and dire ‘developments’ of fundamental doctrine and praxis – confirmed for me an inescapable conclusion. This conclusion asserts that, despite all attempts to rationalize matters to the contrary, the current occupant of the Throne of St. Peter is a manifest heretic. The conclave that elected him could not possibly have cooperated with the Holy Spirit, and the ensuing confusion, hostility towards Tradition and its faithful adherents, much less his relentless enthusiasm to turn revealed doctrine on its head to appease this fallen world, only provides sickeningly substantial proof that Francis is a false pope. This is a realization that is my own and is entirely susceptible to misapprehension on my part, but I’ve reached the extremity of my ability to think otherwise. And this causes me no small amount of turmoil…


  41. Windy City Irish Pollack says:

    It may be that we are witnessing a tribulation the likes of which haven’t been seen for centuries, if ever before. I am a terrible sinner, and the fact that I could entertain such ideas about the Sovereign Pontiff fill me with holy terror and spiritual sickness. But my station in life is dramatically different from his, and I do not bear responsibility for the safety of the Deposit of Faith nor the salvation of more than a billion souls. At what point do we consider that there is a diabolical force present at the zenith of our beloved Church? If we come to that conclusion, what do we do about it?

    I have the spiritual well-being of my wife and daughter to consider, in addition to my own. I would be lying if I told you that I don’t occasionally consider going over to the Orthodox Church, fallible as it may be. If the collective objective was to drive away faithful Catholics, they’ve certainly succeeded.

    In all sincerity, I beg your prayers for my family and myself. God bless you for all that you do.

  42. Malta says:

    @Windy City Irish Pollack: I too have been tempted by the Orthodox faith, however I made a vow to God to fight within the Roman rite. It really is a terrible situation, and the fulfillment of Our Lady’s words to Sister Sasagawa at Akita, Japan. I believe in my heart that Our Lady was telling the truth when she said, “fire will fall from the sky, wiping out a great part of humanity.” I would urge anyone reading this to stock-up on some food, water, medicine, a shotgun etc.

  43. Mallu Jack says:

    Fr Hunwicke’s blog had predicted this last January: That the Catechism would change re: death penalty; and that this change would be intended as a precursor to some others.
    “I have just…”, 30 January 2018, Fr Hunwicke’s Mutual Enrichment

  44. mcferran says:

    Both the single underscore and the double underscore pages have existed since 2004 – and for every section of the Catechism. Neither one is new. The double underscore pages have the regular text. The single underscore pages have the text with individual words hyperlinked to a concordance using a system called Intra Text. The single underscore pages are not “buried”. If one does a Google search for the two words – catechism concordance – then one finds them.

  45. John Grammaticus says:

    The former Irish President Mar McaLeese is already pushing this idea …….. God help Ireland, cos no one else will.

  46. ArthurH says:

    I sent out an email last night liked to your article. I was most puzzled. This morning I sent out a PS and I copy that here, adding only this as an aside (and I speak as a retired PhD Research Organic-/Biochemist who specialized in bio-mechanisms): (1) There is no “gay gene”, period; (2) The genes of anyone can be impacted in their expression by nurturing– chemical or behavioral–of the individual, in utero and after. It is at THIS level that virtually all “homosexual tendencies” develop, a type of phenotype (as opposed to genotype) expression, what is known as “epigenetic.” Bottom line: They can choose not to be what they have felt drawn to. And they should be encouraged/lead to that “order” from their “disorder.”

    And here’s the P.S. I sent, much of which is in other comments.

    A P.S. This mystery has a rational—if also procedurally strange— explanation. –

    I have been discussing this with my friend Gregory— a website experience guy— and he explains that small changes— like one vs two dashes—is how websites are changed without their change being obvious. OK. So that is what indeed had happened.

    But although I indeed had checked my current hard copy catechism, as I said; it was my version that was dated 1997, Second Edition. I also still have my original version, dated 1994, and I decided to check that one. In the latter, it does indeed have the “they don’t choose etc.” (which speaking professionally/technically is most misleading— a separate discussion). In the former, it has what the Fr. Martin’s objection is all about: “Disordered orientation”… which homosexuality also happens to be.

    As an aside: I also recalled last night having a different page link come up wrong—i.e. showing a white background, as opposed to the usual orangey-beige—some time in the past, subject not recalled, for its non-controversial nature, I suppose.

    If this be the way they keep track of changes in the CCC, though, it is alien to my experience with documenting such, and esp bothersome when actions in the Vatican have been handled “differently” than historically in my lifetime (at least for when I was paying attention). One might even call the actions “disordered.”

  47. MrsMacD says:

    Dear Windy City Irish Pollack,
    Please be faithful to Holy Mother Church. Jesus promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against her and He wasn’t lying.
    The Orthodox church is not universal, and they allow a man to have three marriages. It’s not all roses over there.
    For comfort, try looking up Our Lady of Revelation in Rome, this apparition was approved by Pope Pius XII. She fortold the coming of this Pope, and instructed us to stay in the Church. God bless us and the Virgin protect us! – Mrs MacD

  48. Basa says:

    In less than 20 years, nothing will remains of all this junk theology.
    And there will be another Pope.

  49. Sanguszka says:

    I have a copy of the “Complete and Unabridged Catechism of the Catholic Church” pocket edition published by Geoffrey Chapman. copyright 1994. First published May 1994, pocket edition published April 1995.

    It has the “new” text for 2358, “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not chose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial..[etc]”

  50. MrsMacD says:

    On the topic of ulterior motives I think everything, from the corruption in the church to the messing with the CCC, which some have opined has had problems from the beginning, to the destruction of the liturgy and everything in between is to destroy trust. Trust in the Church, trust in her holy priests (Which is essential to spiritual growth, to confession and to fostering vocations) , trust in the teachings of Christ, which alone have the words of eternal life. Jesus, I trust in you.

  51. Dismas says:

    First, a homosexual may not choose the way by which he is attacked, but the same can be said of all temptation of every sort. The impulse for evil is not an excuse for an evil act.

    As for the circuitous nature of how these new “opinions” appeared, I wouldn’t be surprised if this is an intentional attempt for errors to bypass the protection of infallibility.

  52. KAS says:

    For me, this is yet another reminder that relying on electronic versions of essential writings is not wise. Catholics need to own hard copies of the CCC before it is tinkered away. Perhaps buy a copy for each of your children. I think we trust the internet too too much for information. It is quick and handy, but it is also changeable in a way a book is not. True, a book can be burned, but it can also be hidden. A disk can be hidden, but without a reader? Diversify how you keep the essential teaching materials of the Faith. Who is to know that YOUR little box of books, hidden away, won’t be the source of knowledge in 1000 years?

    Studies are showing that learning from a book is more effective than learning from a screen. We need to cherish books for the sake of our children and the Faith.

    The whole world seems upside down right now. Sad.

  53. About the “they don’t choose” language: while I agree it can be misrepresented and “spun,” I think it honestly is trying to get at an important phenomenon, namely that many or most people with same-sex erotic attraction do not consciously choose to feel those feelings.

    We have a problem in our time about finding the right language for all this. It’s all just a mess, and most of what even people with the best intentions try to say about this misses the mark.

    We don’t want to say it’s “fixed,” because we don’t want to give aid and comfort to the “God made me this way” error. So people insist, instead, no you choose it.” The fact is, people who do have homosexual or same-sex erotic feelings will often report that for them, it seemed as though they always had these attractions and they haven’t found success in getting rid of them. So along come the “gay pride” folks and say, see, God made you this way, accept it! We aren’t doing the Truth any service if we play along with false dichotomies.

    Even the term, “same-sex attraction” isn’t quite right. Listen carefully: a brother priest rightly pointed out that being “attracted” to the same sex is quite normal: it is when this attraction is eroticized that it becomes a problem. But men are properly attracted — non-erotically — to other men, and women to women. This is normal.

    The language of “homosexual” and “heterosexual” is likewise problematic. This is relatively recent language — from the 1800s or so forward — that subtly misrepresents the truth about human sexuality. Namely, that there are not two different (or multiple) sexualities, but only one: human sexuality. In Biblical language, “He made them male and female.” Just as it is wrong for someone to believe his or her identity is “homosexual,” likewise it is problematic — if you think about it — see oneself as “heterosexual.” Better: you are human, and you are a man or a woman.

    Third, I would observe that there is not merely one “homosexuality,” but multiple. That is to say, one person who is erotically attracted to the same sex (not gender, fyi, but that’s another subject), is likely in this situation for reasons distinct from the reasons someone else is. This phenomenon likely has multiple reasons it develops. Could it be somehow connected to genetics, or to hormonal influences in the womb? Perhaps, although you can’t believe what you hear on this, because it’s all so heavily wrapped in wishful thinking and agendas. Should someone actually discover a legitimate genetic or in utero “causation,” all it means is that one person might be more likely to experience these attractions than another, given other circumstances in life. As the Catechism says, the genesis of this is “largely unexplained.”

    I am giving my own guesses, based on all I’ve read (not a huge amount, but probably more than most). But it seems to me that some number, probably most, people with these attractions do indeed experience them as fixed, even only because they don’t remember, or else didn’t understand, what influences in their lives would have the effect of misshaping their erotic attraction; and by the time they start to think about it, they may have reinforced this by their own actions.

    There are therapies that show some ability to change people’s sexual attractions, but a lot of people try and fail, or try and get part way.

    It’s very likely a result of multiple influences, rather than just one thing. A trauma, whether sexual or not; conflict or disconnect in the relationship of the child with one or both parents; some personality feature of the individual him- or herself (i.e., being overly shy or weak or withdrawn, etc.); exposure to eroticism or pornography or sexual experience at the wrong time; values being taught; and how the individual navigates puberty, etc. There is data — which may not be trustworthy, again, due to agendas — that says people report experiencing sexual attraction on a spectrum; I’m thinking of the old data, 50 or 60 years ago from Kinsey. Meanwhile, there are more recent reports that increasing numbers of young people are self-identifying as either “gay” or “bisexual” or some variation thereof. All of which raises certain questions. If these attractions are, in fact, rigidly fixed, then why would self-identification data change? Is it because people feel freer to admit it; or is it because at least some people experience these attractions with greater choice, and thus can choose to be one thing today, and other later? Or does it indicate that changes in family life, more sexual traumas, more porn in society, and other factors are producing more young people who experience these attractions?

    And then there is the very curious phenomena of “bisexuality,” and now, “polyamory,” which scramble everything; because if someone claims to be “bi,” then of necessity, doesn’t s/he choose, at some given moment, either to be toward one sex or the other?

    I know this is tedious, but as both Confucius of old, and the totalitarians of the modern age have demonstrated, controlling the language is a huge part of winning the battle. One reason the Catholic Truth on this issue is on the defensive, is because we try to make our case using language shaped by those who reject Catholic Truth; and as I said, this goes back even to the hetero- and homo-sexual terminology.

  54. Peter Stuart says:

    Struggling SSA’s* like me need more “tedium” like what Fr. Martin Fox gives us above. Thanks to all Fathers who treat us as more than just pawns for an agenda!
    *subject to change

  55. GregB says:

    We are all born with Original Sin. It is my understanding that baptism only removes the penalty. The effects, concupiscence, remain. When it comes to temptation, we are all “born that way.”

  56. Windy City Irish Pollack says:

    @Malta: Many thanks for your fine words of consolation. Nothing this side of Paradise is perfect, that’s for sure, and my motivation to jump ship to the Orthodox is very feeble. But I’m fifty-one years old, and I’m very tired – physically, spiritually and emotionally; the apostasy from all corners within the Church has worn me down. It’s not merely misguided lay people, malevolent priests or heretical bishops any longer – the Vicar of Christ himself has become the problem. At times it seems as if every institution for which I’ve had tremendous affection – the Church, the military, academia – has betrayed me by becoming the diametrical opposite of what it’s supposed to be, and some days it’s all I can do not to simply give up. I’m a frail, fallible, foolish man and I’m exhausted. Nevertheless, I will have recourse to your wise counsel and will make every effort to step up the tempo of my devotions. I fear, though, that I have no prayers left for these people; someone much spiritually stronger than me will have to see to that.

    I’m living in the Diocese of St. Petersburg FL now, which is yet another trial…

    @John Grammaticus: Yes, indeed, fine Sir – Ireland is ‘done’. I used to visit my family there each year, but I don’t think I’ll ever return. While this small island of saints, mystics and poets still counts many splendid, decent, faithful people among its population, Ireland’s wholesale embrace of the godless modern zeitgeist has been psychologically catastrophic for me. It appears there’s no longer any novelty, decadence or heterodox whim they won’t make their own… The current Irish mania to make manifest a dystopian Brave New World in what was formerly one of the most Catholic nations in the West would be either quaint or funny, were it not so disgusting. If there is any national bulwark remaining for the Church, I’d say it’s to found in Poland.

    @MrsMacD: Bless you for your solicitude, and I’ll make every effort to follow your advice. Indeed, the Orthodox Church is not perfect by any means but, nevertheless, it has much to recommend it. At the very least, the OC is not inclined to jump aboard the runaway cultural suicide freight train as the West (and, much more importantly, the RC Church) has seen fit to do. Perhaps the best option for me would be to go the Byzantine Catholic route and tune out all of this noise. But who knows; I still love the TLM too much yo completely give it up, though pickings are slim here in the Tampa Bay Area.

  57. Ave Maria says:

    I suspect these changes will just keep on coming and so fast that we cannot keep up. A nice diversion for the homosexual crime brouhaha.

  58. jaykay says:

    Windycityetc. says: “Ireland is ‘done’. I used to visit my family there each year, but I don’t think I’ll ever return. While this small island of saints, mystics and poets still counts many splendid, decent, faithful people among its population, Ireland’s wholesale embrace of the godless modern zeitgeist has been psychologically catastrophic for me.”

    No, we’re not “done”. And it’s not all about you. Whatever your feelings, those of us who actually live here do not share your defeatism. Get a grip, man. What did you think we’d be? “Darby O’ Gill”or the “Quiet Man”? We’ve been exposed to so much of the sewage from the media in recent decades – and yes, most of it emanating from your own place – that it’s hardly surprising a lot of people wouldn’t be infected. And very many have. That’s not to say they don’t have free choice – they do, of course. But the main source of the sewage is from where? Clean up your own act first.

  59. Andy_P says:

    Thank you for pointing this out Father in the detail that you did. I have also heard this floated as a possibility but the links to the .va website seals it.

    We can not be scandalized anymore. We have to learn our faith and fight back. But we need orthodox priests to do it.

  60. Windy City Irish Pollack says:

    @jaykay: Hello there, friend. It appears I’ve torqued you up, for which I profoundly apologize. Your anti-American animus is noted, informed as it undoubtedly is by being overwhelmed each season with legions of tenth-generation Irish-American tourists who would drive any sane man mad. I take no umbrage at your distaste, but a couple of things should be made clear:

    1. I expressed my own personal opinion re. the current state of affairs in Ireland. As difficult as it may be to believe, not all Americans’ ideas are informed by films, t.v. shows or other manifestations of popular culture, though I did chuckle at the references you provided. My opinion is just that – my opinion. As such, it is indeed “all about [me]”.

    2. “Ireland is ‘done’”, in my opinion, because it has become – with the recent homosexualist, divorce and abortion referenda, not to mention its bewildering election of Mr. Varadkar as Taoiseach – merely the latest, if smallest, member of a broad coterie of post-Christian Western European countries. Ireland has made this transformation with terrifying alacrity, perhaps just within the confines of a singular generation. To the extent that the Republic of Ireland has jettisoned much of the Catholic ethos and dialectic that guided its society for centuries and has successfully become a fully ‘modern’ nation in every lamentable way that that adjective now connotes, yes, the country is ‘done’, it’s ill-advised journey is complete. With the rate at which it’s needlessly importing unassimilable foreigners into its relatively tiny borders, Ireland will be indistinguishable from Sweden before the next generation takes root.

    3. You’re quite right – much of American popular culture is atrocious, despicable and evil. I consider myself a patriotic American, but I submit no brief in defense of the garbage that emanates from our media and popular entertainment – no surer example of pure evil let loose in this world. But keep in mind that the faithful Catholic remnant in this country has always been an outlier, a minority in a Protestant society itself the product of the Enlightenment. As such, it was only a matter of time before the devolution of our societal mores was made manifest, as it has now. Hey, haven’t you heard? Homosexuality is so twentieth-century; on this side of the pond we’ve just about made transsexualism boring and we’re busy mainstreaming pedophilia at the moment. It’s a veritable
    horse race whether bestiality or necrophilia will be next… My point is, Ireland needn’t inflict itself with any of this. For some reason that escapes me, however, it’s decided to embark down that same road.

    4. I’m second-generation on both sides, and I’ve spent years traveling throughout Ireland, studying its history, politics, literature and language. I’m in no way analogous to the variety of St. Paddy’s Day moronic American of distant Irish descent that have surely upset your digestive system one time too many. I have substantial family throughout the island, to include militant Protestants in Ulster.
    Come to think of it, your response to my comment has inspired me to amend my erstwhile travel
    moratorium to the Emerald Isle; to the extent that it remains solidly atavistic, phillistine and otherwise standing athwart the relentless onrush of modernity screaming “STOP!!!”, I shall restrict all future visits to the redoubtable precincts of Northern Ireland. Dear God, I never thought I’d see the day when I’d actually miss Ian Paisley…

    Again, dear jaykay, please do not be unduly upset with my remarks. They do subscribe to an an internal reasoning, even if you don’t agree with the substance of my opinions. As stated earlier, I’m in a funk and long so dearly for something familiar, reliable, unchaining and hostile to modernity. I’m sorry to see my beloved Ireland, land of my ancestors and an indispensable source of familial, spiritual and cultural nourishment for me for five decades, endure this latest angst. I wish you, your family and all those like you peace, and it’s my fervent prayer that you are victorious in turning things around.

  61. Malta says:

    As to the homosexualist agenda in Ireland, I will start by saying I am partially of Irish descent, and studied at Trinity College in Dublin. I’ve been throughout that nation, and even up to Belfast. It is amazing to see how fast it has fallen. I met with the Mystic Christina Gallagher ( who opposed the Maastrich treaty, which made Ireland fully a part of the European Union (EU). The EU puts great pressure on its member states to support abortion and homosexual marriage; Malta is one of the last hold-outs on those issues in the EU.

  62. I just want to thank CatholicPhilosopher for his excellent comment. He did the best job of investigating this.

  63. jaykay says:

    Windy City Irish Pollack: I’m not torqued (like it!) or unduly upset. Non torquatus sum! My only torque, or upset, is with the fact that you, or anyone, might think I’m anti-American! Very, very far from the truth. Although I’m among the few of those here who have absolutely no family connections with the States, living, dead or in between, in fact I am very fond of the US (and Canadian – it’s hard for us to tell the difference!) tourists we get, of whom I see many, working as I do in the centre of Dublin. I frequently have had a couple of beers with some of them, when I’ve been relaxing after work. By and large, nice folks, I’ve found – and much politer than us natives, I’m ashamed to say.

    Anyway, I don’t quite share the view that we’re “done” just yet. Certainly, a lot of people seem to be in lotus-eating mode, now that the economy is back on track, and haven’t really woken up to the manifest dangers you point to – many of which spring from our continuing infatuation with the EU. But insofar as immigration goes, it’s very important to make the difference between EU immigration, which is what most of ours consists of, and non-EU. And even within that latter category there are important differences e.g. Chinese as opposed to other “Asians” – as the media insist on calling a certain group (ahem) – and the Africans. But if you talk to people, or participate in discussion boards, you’ll find that many are actually keenly aware, many resentfully so, but are in many cases afraid to speak because of the perceived danger of being dubbed “waycissss” – or worse. The situation in the countryside is very different to that in the towns and cities – none of which are very big anyway. People do speak their minds a lot more, I’ve found. It can be quite refreshing, away from all the PC BS.

    As to making the “transformation with terrifying alacrity, perhaps just within the confines of a singular generation”, well, no – it’s being going on since I was a teenager back in the 70s. It just took a good while for the facade to crumble but the actual structure behind was weak for a long, long time. Because we’re part of the Anglosphere, and because of the obvious close connections with your U.S., we are to a great extent influenced, for better or worse, by developments there. Hence my reference to the stream of sewage, in terms of the worst aspects. I’m not saying that’s uniquely American, by the way, and we do of course benefit from all the best aspects of US culture, but the bad bits affect us to a much greater extent than would similar developments in Europe, for the obvious linguistic reasons, because we’re much more integrated with the Anglosphere than with our dear European brethren. Even if we have to pretend otherwise in the Potemkin village of “EU unity” ;-/

    I won’t try to pretend that recent developments – the gay “marriage”, the horrible betrayal of the abortion referendum – are not very shocking. They are, and while I have, here and elsewhere, continually pointed to the fact that we had the equivalent in US terms of over 2 million people on the streets of Dublin earlier this year and last year in relation to that referendum, I and others are still stunned as to how it happened so overwhelmingly. The pro-life side here are still analysing that, and seeing where we’ll go in the future. But we are not down and out, and it ain’t over yet by a long mile. This link encapsulates the spirit, as well as giving some reasons as to what happened and why:

    Finally, I would vote DUP if I lived in Northern Ireland because of their sound pro-life stance. I had family connections there, North Down, strongly Protestant/Unionist place, and know it well. I like the people. I live near the border anyway, and may well decide to retire there in a couple of years!

  64. JeremyB says:

    It is interesting and comforting that so may people had the same first reaction to the “doctrinal change” of the death penalty. My first reaction as well as to regard it as a trial balloon for further changes, allowing the nose of the camel into the tent, etc. However, upon further thought, I find this change to have even more serious consequences to our faith, even if those were not intended by the Vatican. It just goes to show how interconnected the truth is….when you deny or try to change one part of it, the whole garment starts to unravel.

    The whole gist of the change seems to be the denial of the link between grave crimes and proportional retribution for those crimes. The view seems to be that the essential end of punishment for crime is no longer just retribution, but only the other ends, such as deterrence and amendment of life. The Church has always taught that capital punishment is a proportional redress for grave crimes and that the State has the right, if it deems prudent, to use this means. By saying that the State can no longer do this, the implication is that it is no longer deserved and that the other ends of punishment hold primary place.

    Ed Feser and others explain in great detail why this is wrong, but there is another implication to this. Our understanding of Christ’s Passion and our Redemption are rooted in this understanding that great crimes require great punishment. If human sin is not a great crime against God, then what was the point of the Redemption? If just retribution was not necessary to restore the disorder caused by sin, then what was the point of Christ’s Incarnation and Death? If retribution is a violation of human dignity, then why did God allow His only Son to suffer such an indignity?

    Rather, in the Redemption, we see a perfect act of punishment, combining all its ends in a perfect act of justice and mercy. The retributive end is perfectly fulfilled by the immolation of a perfect victim. It is perfect mercy because the true criminals, ourselves with our sinful actions, are not given our just deserts in this life. The possibility of amendment is given not only by foregoing the death which we deserve, but also by giving us the means, by grace, to amend our lives. We are also deterred from sin by the public and horrific spectacle of the Crucifixion of Innocence Incarnate. By implicitly divorcing the just and proportional action of God in requiring retribution for sin, it makes God look like a vengeful monster.

    The same argument applies to hell. If man’s dignity is such that he can commit no crime that is worthy of death, then how can he commit a sin that is worthy of hell?

    I understand that these are not explicitly contained in the statements by the Vatican, but the implications make me pause with concern.

  65. johnwmstevens says:

    The text in one version uses “objectively disordered”, while the other uses “intrinsically disordered.”
    I’ve done my due diligence, but I’m still left with a question that perhaps only a well-trained priest can answer: Is there a meaningful difference between the two?
    The use of “objectively disordered” stems from a natural law analysis of the acts, but does not “intrinsically ordered” mean pretty much the same thing?
    That said, I prefer “objectively” for its clearer relationship to the natural law.

  66. roseannesullivan says:

    One of the myths promoted by homosexual proponents is that people who act out on homosexual feelings are created that way. That is not true. We are all tempted by sin, and we get conditioned to sinful acts by giving into them. The first impulse of attraction to anyone you aren’t married to needs to be recognized for what it is, a temptation to sin.
    Anecdotes aren’t scientific proof but I have a few to the point. Two boys in my high school were “different.” I ran into them a few years later outside a restaurant in Boston’s Chinaton dressed as women soliciting male clients. They weren’t pursuing love. They were driven by their practice of their unnatural attraction into engaging in more and more vice.
    My freshman year in college I got close to a bright, handsome junior who the other male students envied because he was able to seduce women, at a time when most women still were saving themselves for marriage. Soon, he started having uncommitted sex with many men, dabbling in prostitution and pornography. He wanted the pleasure of being pursued by men with no commitment. Women he had seduced had kept threatening to commit suicide if they could not have him exclusively. He wanted to be desired and didn’t want love and commitment. He pursued homosexual vice for the pleasure and excitement and even the sordidness of it. The last time I talked to him was in a phone call after I was married with children who were 10 and 12 at the time, and he had to nerve to tell me he wished he could get a hold of my kids and free them from the sexually repressive Catholic teachings he believed I was brainwashing them with.
    Another young woman I know started acting as a lesbian because men weren’t attracted to her. Later in her life she lost a few pounds and became attractive to both sexes. Now she presents herself as a crusader for bi-sexual acceptance.

    None of these practicing homosexuals were biologically destined to disordered attractions.

Comments are closed.