Has the Church ever edited "homosexuality is a choice" out of the Catechism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ben_Sinner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Ben_Sinner

Guest
I was reading a post by Fr. James Martin on Facebook

facebook.com/FrJamesMartin/posts/10152861164141496

And one of the commenters asked

***Has anyone discussed the edit on the catechism where they dropped the “it is not a choice” phrase? ***

Yes, I understand a random comment on Facebook isn’t the best of sources, but I figured I would get some clarification on if the Church ever did that.

Have they?
 
I don’t see “homosexuality is a choice” in the Catechism. Do you have a citation?

The CCC:
Chastity and homosexuality
Click to expand...
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,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
Click to expand...
 
Fr. Martin seems to forget that Jesus called sin a sin out of love. Compassion for this life but conversion is needed for the next.
 
There were apparently some Latin-to-English translation issues with the first English edition (1994/1995) of the Catechism of the Catholic Church in many places, including the section on homosexuality, that were corrected in the second English edition (1997). See second post in this thread.
 
Todd beat me to it-- my Catechism is a 1994 printing.

In section 2358, the sentence which currently reads, “This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.” was once conveyed in the first edition as, “They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial.”
 
Todd977 said:
There were apparently some Latin-to-English translation issues with the first English edition (1994/1995) of the Catechism of the Catholic Church in many places, including the section on homosexuality, that were corrected in the second English edition (1997). See second post in this thread.
midori_;13079430:
Todd beat me to it-- my Catechism is a 1994 printing.

In section 2358, the sentence which currently reads, “This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.” was once conveyed in the first edition as, “They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial.”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Very interesting!

-Tim-
 
Ben_Sinner said:
I was reading a post by Fr. James Martin on Facebook

facebook.com/FrJamesMartin/posts/10152861164141496

And one of the commenters asked

***Has anyone discussed the edit on the catechism where they dropped the “it is not a choice” phrase? ***

Yes, I understand a random comment on Facebook isn’t the best of sources, but I figured I would get some clarification on if the Church ever did that.

Have they?
Click to expand...
The wording was changed slightly as indicated by a previous poster. There were more than 100 mostly minor wording changes from one edition to the next, though I’m not aware of any source to explain how the changes arose or their significance.

In respect of this one, my own assumption is that the Church recognised that the original statement contributes nothing to the moral teaching and might be used by some to claim that the Church has some insight into the etiology of homosexuality, which it doesn’t.
 
Todd977 said:
There were apparently some Latin-to-English translation issues with the first English edition (1994/1995) of the Catechism of the Catholic Church in many places, including the section on homosexuality, that were corrected in the second English edition (1997).
Click to expand...
The first English edition was translated directly from the original French. I’m not sure how closely that passage in the English matched the French. My guess is that it was pretty close, but people complained and a decision was made to revise it by the time the Latin translation was promulgated.
 
Let’s look at ONLY the relevant portions of CCC 2358

As Digitonomy mentioned, the original English was translated from a French version.

Original CCC teaching of ONLY the relevant portion of of CCC 2358 (Latin) . . .

CCC 2358 Haec propensio, obiective inordinata, . . . .

I’ll label the1st English translation as CCC 2358-1
I’ll label the 2nd English translation as CCC 2358-2
I’ll label the Latin as CCC 2358-L
I’ll label the French translation as CCC 2358-Fr

CCC 2358-1st They do not choose their homosexual condition;

CCC 2358-2nd This inclination, which is objectively disordered,

Now let’s look at the French:

CCC 2358-Fr Cette propension, objectivement désordonnée,

Again the Latin . . . .

CCC 2358 Haec propensio, obiective inordinata, . . . .

Latin = Haec propensio, obiective inordinata

Google Translation of above Latin to English = “This inclination, which is objectively disordered”

Latin “Haec propensio, obiective inordinata” = English “This inclination, which is objectively disordered” (as per Google)

Ben Sinner. Taking the above information applied to your original question . . . .
Has the Church ever edited “homosexuality is a choice” out of the Catechism?
Click to expand...
. . . . . I’m not sure it WAS “in” the Catechism per se, so much as it was in a (now corrected) “translation”.
Now the next logical question that will follow from the above information would be . . . . “WHY was this ‘translated’ this way in the first place?”

Why was “Haec propensio, obiective inordinata” ever ‘translated’ as, **“They do not choose their homosexual condition”? **

I don’t know.

God bless.

Cathoholic
 
Cathoholic said:
Let’s look at ONLY the relevant portions of CCC 2358

As Digitonomy mentioned, the original English was translated from a French version.

Original CCC teaching of ONLY the relevant portion of of CCC 2358 (Latin) . . .

CCC 2358 Haec propensio, obiective inordinata, . . . .

I’ll label the1st English translation as CCC 2358-1
I’ll label the 2nd English translation as CCC 2358-2
I’ll label the Latin as CCC 2358-L
I’ll label the French translation as CCC 2358-Fr

CCC 2358-1st They do not choose their homosexual condition;

CCC 2358-2nd This inclination, which is objectively disordered,

Now let’s look at the French:

CCC 2358-Fr Cette propension, objectivement désordonnée,

Again the Latin . . . .

CCC 2358 Haec propensio, obiective inordinata, . . . .

Latin = Haec propensio, obiective inordinata

Google Translation of above Latin to English = “This inclination, which is objectively disordered”

Latin “Haec propensio, obiective inordinata”
Click to expand...
= English “This inclination, which is objectively disordered” (as per Google)

Ben Sinner. Taking the above information applied to your original question . . . .

. . . . . I’m not sure it WAS “in” the Catechism per se, so much as it was in a (now corrected) “translation”.
Now the next logical question that will follow from the above information would be . . . . “WHY was this ‘translated’ this way in the first place?”

Why was “Haec propensio, obiective inordinata” ever ‘translated’ as, **“They do not choose their homosexual condition”? **

I don’t know.

God bless.

Cathoholic

It almost sounds a though the persons producing the 1st English edition exercised some editorial freedom (ad-lib, embellishment, whatever) - but that idea “…do not choose…” does not seem to be present in the original Latin or the French translation of it. [NB: I’m assuming there was only ever a single Latin edition - is that right?]
 
Rau said:
It almost sounds a though the persons producing the 1st English edition exercised some editorial freedom (ad-lib, embellishment, whatever) - but that idea “…do not choose…” does not seem to be present in the original Latin or the French translation of it. [NB: I’m assuming there was only ever a single Latin edition - is that right?]
Click to expand...
I believe the Catechism was originally published in French, not Latin, and most of the translations were from the French. The Latin edition wasn’t published until 5 years later at which time the English edition was amended.
 
Cathoholic said:
Let’s look at ONLY the relevant portions of CCC 2358
As Digitonomy mentioned, the original English was translated from a French version.

…Now the next logical question that will follow from the above information would be . . . . “WHY was this ‘translated’ this way in the first place?”

Why was “Haec propensio, obiective inordinata” ever ‘translated’ as, **“They do not choose their homosexual condition”? **
Click to expand...
I don’t think it ever was, unless there was a Latin source that was being directly quoted in that paragraph.

Rather, the next logical question would be
"Why was ** “Cette propension, objectivement désordonnée,”** ever translated “They do not choose their homosexual condition”

And I don’t think it was either. I think the original French probably matched the English, and that both were revised when they produced the Latin translation. Since you are quoting only the current French version at the Vatican website, we don’t know what the original French CCC (or really CEC) said in this paragraph. Unfortunately I haven’t been able to find any verification that the French was revised. Perhaps Phemie has access to one of the first-published French versions, or can verify or refute that it was ever revised.
 
Digitonomy said:
I don’t think it ever was, unless there was a Latin source that was being directly quoted in that paragraph.

Rather, the next logical question would be
"Why was ** “Cette propension, objectivement désordonnée,”** ever translated “They do not choose their homosexual condition”

And I don’t think it was either. I think the original French probably matched the English, and that both were revised when they produced the Latin translation. Since you are quoting only the current French version at the Vatican website, we don’t know what the original French CCC (or really CEC) said in this paragraph. Unfortunately I haven’t been able to find any verification that the French was revised. Perhaps Phemie has access to one of the first-published French versions, or can verify or refute that it was ever revised.
Click to expand...
No access to an original edition but here’s a site that shows that they did indeed change that particular article in French after the promulgation of the Latin typical edition. There is a change in the meaning.

30giorni.it/articoli_id_9865_l4.htm
 
Digitonomy said:
French.
Click to expand...
I’m surprised there are enough Bishops conversant in that language! But if that is the case, we have to assume the original French and original English were in reasonable alignment. In which case, this supports the view that the words were changed for reason such as I suggested in an earlier post (#8).
 
Rau said:
I don’t see where it speaks of not choosing… My French is poor, however…
Click to expand...
Tendances foncières and *tendances profondément enracinées *are substantially different. The second is the same as in English, the first means that it’s part of their basic make up, which would mean they have no choice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top