by wm. b. smith

A welcome correction to the Catechism

Question: I read that the Latin Catechism (1997) somewhat corrected the Catechism’s teaching on homosexuality. I have no access to the Latin; is this so?

    Answer: Yes. The English translation of the Catechism (1993) now in print says in #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” (CCC #2358; emphasis added).

    Our English version is an accurate translation of the original French: “Ils ne choisissent pas leur condition homosexuelle.” The Spanish and Italian translations do the same.

    However, in the now official (9/8/97) Latin Catechism there is a correction of this ambiguity. The second sentence of #2358 now reads: “Haec propensio, obiective inordinata, pro maiore eorum parte constituit probationem” (Catechismus Catholicae Ecclesia [1997] p. 598)—“This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial” (cf. Origins 27:15 [9/25/97] p. 261).

    While the first publication in French was authentic, only the Latin version is official and, where corrected, definitive. Thus, the “they do not choose their homosexual condition” has been eliminated and replaced with the “This inclination, which is objectively disordered, . . .”

    In fact, this small correction was both needed and logical. The prior version of #2358 was really at odds with the preceding paragraph in #2357: “Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.”

    If in #2357, you make the correct social science statement that its psychological genesis is largely unexplained, it makes no sense to say in the next paragraph that “they do not choose” this condition for in saying that one takes for granted an “explanation” of what it just said is “unexplained.”

    Also, in the atmosphere of political correctness and “advocacy theology,” this small ambiguity in the original version of the Catechism did not go unnoticed. For whatever reason, America magazine seems dedicated to providing friendly space to gay Catholics and their special pleading.

    America (v. 168:16 [5/8/93] pp. 5-11) published a lengthy interview with Andrew Sullivan whose basic point was that he is openly “Catholic” and openly “gay.” Sullivan cites the Catechism as incoherent: Q. “Have you seen it?” A. “I’ve read it in French, yes.” Q. “What does it concede?” A. “That homosexuality is, so far as one can tell, an involuntary condition” (America [5/8/93] p. 7). From this, Sullivan argues that the Church position is philosophically and fundamentally incoherent.

    Another, and more recent, article in America (v. 177:13 [11/1/97] pp. 6-23) by S. Rossetti and G. D. Coleman overworks the same ambiguity (p. 6). Perhaps, with the official Catechism now corrected, America will publish some correctives too. That “perhaps” is a faint hope.

    Unfortunately, an NCCB Committee on Marriage and Family issued (10/1/97) a Pastoral “Always Our Children” to the Parents of Homosexual Children (cf. Origins 27:17 [10/9/97] 285; 287-291) which is not that pastoral nor theologically accurate.

    “Always Our Children” (AOC) teaches that generally, homosexual orientation is experienced “as a given” (p. 289) and therefore cannot be considered sinful (p. 289), and more emphatically, “a homosexual orientation, which is not immoral in itself” (p. 290).

    Roman documents from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) to the Catechism (1992; 1997) use the more theologically accurate terms “condition,” or “tendency”; whereas the NCCB-AOC seems locked into “orientation” terminology.

    In any case, a “tendency, “condition,” “inclination” or “orientation” prior to choice (i.e., what does not proceed from the will with a knowledge of the end) is not properly placed in the categories of moral choice.

    However, as the CDF Letter, “Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons” (PCHP) (10/1/86), n. 3 took careful note of the common distinction between the homosexual condition or tendency and homosexual actions, the CDF noted as well that the post-1975 discussion of this distinction gave an “overly benign interpretation” to the “homosexual condition” itself. Some went as far as to call that condition neutral or even good. To avoid continuing confusion, the CDF taught with precision that although a particular inclination is not a sin, “it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder” (CDF-PCHP [1986] n. 3; and Catechism [1997] #2358).

    Thus, in categories prior to moral choice, this “condition” or “tendency” is to be seen as an objective disorder. When NCCB-AOC teaches that the homosexual inclination is “not immoral,” it must mean that it is moral or neutral, which is precisely in contradiction to what the CDF taught so clearly in CDF-PCHP (1986).
    Further, the NCCB-AOC “Pastoral” does not strike me as very pastoral. AOC teaches: “If . . . an adolescent . . . may be experimenting with some homosexual behaviors. . . . Sometimes the best approach may be a wait-and-see attitude, . . .” (p. 288).

    I know of no authentic moral or pastoral teaching that suggests a “wait-and-see” attitude towards occasion of sin, much less sinful acts by adolescents. I can’t imagine any pastor or parent in the Church suggesting “wait-and-see” to adolescents who may be experimenting in grave theft, perjury or incest. That is not pastoral and will not foster a correct conscience; it can easily foster an erroneous conscience which is not the goal of loving and caring parents or pastors.
    Thus, the correction in the Catechism #2358 is a welcome correction. It is not new teaching but the same teaching of the CDF (1986) which some did not accept then and apparently some still do not accept.

Moral Investments?

Question: I have some savings in a mutual fund for retirement. A friend said I should check to see whether I am supporting anti-life or immoral activities. Is there a moral question here?

    Answer: There is, I think, a moral question; but a clear moral answer is not immediately obvious in this matter.

    The moral question involves some form of “cooperation” (support) in evil. The direct ownership of individual stocks is a clearer target in a clearer picture. If a company is substantially or even significantly involved in immoral products or policies, it seems to me, a serious Catholic should not support nor profit from such things. Surely other options are available without any real loss.

    Mutual funds, however, are not direct ownership, as I understand it, but are rather shares in holding companies (mutuals) that invest in many businesses of many kinds, some funds with many turnovers. Technically, having shares in a mutual fund holding stocks in many businesses, one does not buy or own a share in any one of those businesses. It is said today that there are numerically more mutual funds than individual stock listings on the N.Y. Stock Exchange.

    The moral question of “cooperation” involves both intentionality (agreement/disagreement) and causative participation (assistance, support: how proximate, how remote?). Ownership of minor shares in mutuals holding millions of shares in multiple companies, corporations or conglomerates does not lend itself to easy arithmetic or even meaningful causality.

    The only serious treatment of this precise question that I know of can be found in G. Grisez’s, Difficult Moral Questions, The Way of the Lord Jesus, v. 3 (1997) Q. #112, pp. 502-507. Before trying to answer the question, Grisez properly reviews some prior questions that touch on the social and ethical responsibilities of wealth and investment in accord with the social teachings of the Church and, in particular, Pope John Paul II’s, Centesimus Annus (5/1/91) n. 35.

    Grisez proposes as a form of acceptable material cooperation an investment in mutual funds when: (1) there is no morally preferable way to meet reasonable needs; (2) there is some reasonable effort to investigate and exclude companies that profit from wrong doing; (3) one resists the temptation to cooperate formally (by agreement) in any wrong-doing; and (4) one does what one can to inform (write) management to right wrongs that come to your attention. Holding stock in companies whose wrongful activities do not contribute significantly to its profits is questionable but not clearly wrong (v. 3, p. 503).

    Grisez notes that it is probably not feasible for every individual to find out about all the products, policies and activities of all the businesses in various mutual funds, and where feasible, some funds often change their holdings (p. 506). He notes as well that some funds describe themselves as “socially responsible” but those labels are more often secularist—more concerned with sexual harassment, ecology, secondary smoke and animal rights than with the destruction of innocent human life or substandard wages for workers. Such “standards” tend more toward political correctness than to any standards in the Old or New Testament.

    Even investments in government bonds and bills may not be entirely clean since some tiny portion of them might subsidize some activities no Christian can really approve of.

    The complexity and remoteness of the mutual fund investment make it difficult to draw clear lines or truly binding obligations. Thus, the prudential norms offered by Grisez are, I think, about as clear as are available to us.

Please address questions to Msgr. Wm. B. Smith, St. Joseph’s Seminary, Dunwoodie, Yonkers, N.Y. 10704.    n

Back to February HPR Table of Contents