2

Does Catholic Church have any dogma about homosexuality? I have not heard nor found any.

One is tempted to make the comparison with the "conditional nature of the private property rights" that are expressed, e.g. in https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20201003_enciclica-fratelli-tutti.html article 120. There is no dogma about the private property rights (AFAIK), there is strong Church teaching on the conditional nature, but nevertheless, there are attempts to question this conditionality.

I am not aware of any official (*.va) list of all dogmas, but there is one non-official list http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2015/09/19/a-list-of-the-dogmas-of-the-catholic-church/ and it has 2 dogmas for marriage.

TomR
  • 607
  • 4
  • 11
  • 1
    Sexual relations are for married men and women and must always be open possibility of pregnancy. – Kris May 26 '21 at 01:29
  • 1
    The cited list of dogmas does not contain dogmas on sexual relations either. – TomR May 26 '21 at 02:14
  • Denzinger is what you're looking for I think, for Catholic dogmas (as of a century ago at least) – Peter Turner May 26 '21 at 04:14
  • 1
    The catechism of the Church speaks out on this calling homosexual acts intrinsically disordered. There are many things that the church claims as beliefs that are not on the list of official dogma. – Kris May 26 '21 at 12:24
  • Catechism, I guess, also has strong words about conditionality of private property rights. So, why one thing is ignored without raising schisma and other enforced with incredible force, especially by those who ignore conditionality. – TomR May 26 '21 at 13:39

1 Answers1

2

The First Vatican Council established that the pope is infallible when,

by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals [de fide vel moribus] to be held by the universal Church

(source: "What is meant by “faith and morals” with regards to papal infallibility?")

Now, Pope Pius XI, discussing the abuse of matrimony in Casti Connubii, 31 Dec. 1930, reiterated longstanding Catholic teaching* that the primary purpose of the sexual organs is procreation of children, and anything against this (e.g., sodomy, contraception, etc.) is a sin against nature and intrinsically evil (Denzinger 2239):

But surely no reason, not even the gravest, can bring it about that what is intrinsically against nature becomes in accord with nature, and honorable. Since, moreover, the conjugal act by its very nature is destined for the generating of offspring, those who in the exercise of it deliberately deprive it of its natural force and power, act contrary to nature, and do something that is shameful and intrinsically bad.

*cf. Romans 1:26-27, that "men with men working that which is filthy" "is against nature" and "the natural use of the women"

His condemnation of contraception in that same encyclical is also infallible dogma pertaining to morals; cf. the "De moribus" section of this answer.

There is no dogma about the private property rights

It is a defined dogma that Jesus and the apostles possessed private property:
Pope John XXII Cum inter nonnullos 13 Nov. 1323 on the poverty of Christ (Denzinger 494):

[…] to affirm persistently that our Redeemer and Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles did not possess anything either in particular or even in common […] we […] declare […] shall henceforth be branded as erroneous and heretical, since it expressly contradicts Sacred Scripture, which in many passages asserts that they did have some possessions […]

And they had rights to the use, selling, or donating of said property:

Moreover, […] to affirm persistently that the right to use these same possessions which Sacred Scripture testifies that they had was by no means appropriate to our aforesaid Redeemer and His apostles, and that they did not have the right to sell or to donate them or to acquire others by means of them, which, nevertheless, Sacred Scripture testifies that they did […] is wicked, contrary to Sacred Scripture, and to Catholic doctrine about the use, actions, or deeds on the part of our Redeemer, the Son of God, we declare […] worthily branded as erroneous and heretical.

Geremia
  • 39,167
  • 4
  • 47
  • 103
  • I am almost ready to accept the answer, but just one minor edit is required - it would be good to clarify how Cum inter nonnullus by John XXII relates to the Fratelli Tutti article 120 by Francis. I am a bit confused about the though expressed in these two documents. – TomR May 26 '21 at 18:26
  • 2
    @TomR It's true "The Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private property as absolute or inviolable". In cases of necessity, property becomes common, and it would not, for example, be a sin for someone lacking food to take his neighbor's excess food. cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-II q. 66 a. 7 "Whether it is lawful to steal through stress of need?" (it's technically not stealing in such cases). – Geremia May 26 '21 at 18:33
  • Thanks! I had no idea what a wealth of information and sources I would get when I posted my question, which, to be true, was a bit like joke. Thanks once more! – TomR May 26 '21 at 18:34
  • Neither Casti Connubii 54 nor 73 are exercises of papal infallibility. I don't know of any theologian who holds CC 54 to be an exercise of papal infallibility, and in the wake of Humanae Vitae various theologians opposed the encyclical on the basis that the contraception proposition was not infallibly taught. The CDF conceded that it was not an infallible proposition, but rejected the claim that Catholic theologians are able to publicly dissent from the teaching. The dissenting theologians were therefore removed from their teaching positions but never charged with heresy. – zippy2006 May 27 '21 at 04:30
  • ...It would seem that the Church's teaching against homosexuality has a high degree of doctrinal weight even though it does not fall within that set of propositions defined by an exercise of papal infallibility. The basic thrust of your answer is correct, but the claim regarding the applicability of papal infallibility is mistaken. – zippy2006 May 27 '21 at 04:33
  • @zippy2006 "_ I don't know of any theologian who holds CC 54 to be an exercise of papal infallibility_" See the full Fr. Cartechini quote here ("Some affirm it to be dogma because the Pontiff uses very solemn words." etc.…)." But, "even if it is not a dogma of the faith, the doctrine he promulgated certainly is infallibly true because the Pope authoritatively and with solemn words expresses a moral doctrine that from ancient times the ordinary and universal magisterium has constantly proposed must be be held and observed." – Geremia May 27 '21 at 16:43
  • @zippy2006 "CDF conceded that it was not an infallible proposition" It did? What did it say? – Geremia May 27 '21 at 16:44
  • @Geremia I read the Cartechini quote where he explicitly states that it is not necessarily a dogma. The basic problem is that Cartechini is writing prior to the Humanae Vitae controversy, which ended up proving him wrong. I would suggest reading up on the CDF's actions against the theologians who denied the proposition, such as Hans Kung and Charles Curran. If those theologians had denied a dogma of the faith they would have been excommunicated on the basis of heresy. They were not, and the core of the controversy revolved around the question of whether dogma was at stake. – zippy2006 May 27 '21 at 20:35
  • @zippy2006 "even if it is not a dogma of the faith", it is still a doctrine of morals; papal infallibility extends to "faith or morals". Also, as I wrote there: "Since the will follows the intellect by necessarily desiring the good that the intellect presents it (cf. Thomistic thesis #21), morals always have a doctrinal basis." – Geremia May 27 '21 at 23:40
  • @Geremia I think you are confusing the scope of infallible teaching ("de fide vel moribus") with the highest level of teaching ("de fide"). Those are two different things. Moral propositions can be de fide dogmas. For example, "Thou shalt not kill" is generally considered a de fide dogma even though it is a moral proposition. The reason Kung and Curran were not excommunicated is because the propositions of Humanae Vitae that they dissented from were not de fide dogmas. It doesn't matter that they were moral propositions. Not all moral propositions are de fide dogmas. – zippy2006 May 28 '21 at 00:43
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – Geremia May 28 '21 at 04:10
  • On the point about private property, almost all Marxists, let alone more moderate critics of private property rights, draw a distinction between personal property (which is permitted) and private property (private ownership of productive capital). So the fact that Catholicism allows personal property says nothing about its dogma with regard to the capitalist system. – rjpond Oct 08 '22 at 17:23
  • 1
    @rjpond The dogmatic definition doesn't distinguish between productive and non-productive property. Also, capitalism is condemned; see § "Condemnation of Capitalism and Socialism" of this answer, which quotes Pope Pius XI's Quadragesimo anno (1931). – Geremia Oct 08 '22 at 21:26