It is dismaying to read four misleading things in Melinda Selmys’ article about “the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality.” 

These four misleading things are her allegations that: (1) the Catechism declares (that) individuals “do not choose their homosexual condition”; (2) there exist “genuine spiritual and political needs of homosexual people”; (3) there exist “legitimate rights” that homosexual persons have; and (4) ‘orientation change’ is “not endorsed by the Vatican.” 

These allegations of hers are dismaying because she thinks they represent Catholic belief/teaching. They do not. Here’s a quick response to each allegation of hers, a response meant to respect (if not wholly elaborate) Catholic belief/teaching: 

(1) She is using an outdated excerpt from the first draft of the Catechism, an excerpt that never was accorded official Catholic status. What she alleges is NOT FOUND in the Catechism’s official statement on homosexuality; 

(2) It is disingenuous to suggest as she does here. The existence of genuine “spiritual and political needs” has nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality. Whatever is genuine by way of ‘needs’ has to do with persons as such; 

(3) There are no rights that inhere in anyone by virtue of homosexuality (whether homosexual activity or homosexual inclination). Rights inhere in persons as such; 

(4) When it comes to sexuality, ‘orientation’ in everyone is first a naturally existing orientation to the other gender. Homosexuality represents the interruption of this natural sexual orientation. Given this kind of understanding of “orientation,” changing homosexual inclination is really all about re-establishing what was once naturally occurring (of course, without failing to respect the person) — and this kind of change is something that the Vatican endorses! 

Melinda Selmys responds: Homosexuals do have genuine spiritual needs which are intimately related to the homosexual condition and to the demands of homosexual chastity. If this were not true, there would be no need for the existence of a group like Courage. 

The legitimate political rights and needs of all people inhere in them as persons as such. Some groups, however, are vulnerable. When we speak of prisoner’s rights, this does not imply that we approve of crime, but rather that we recognize the inherent human dignity of those who, whether through their own fault or through unjust processes, have been imprisoned. We also recognize that standing up for the legitimate human rights of marginalized people is often a precondition of effective Christian witness. 

The position which Courage and the Vatican do not endorse is the belief that the resumption of opposite-sex attraction and heterosexual activity is necessary or possible for all homosexual persons. This is why the Vatican distinguishes between transitory same-sex attraction and “homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable” (Vatican document “Persona humana,” 1975). 

Finally, the use of the 1992 Catechism was an honest mistake. The 1992 wording is, however, consistent with the teaching of the Church as expressed in other documents, and is perfectly compatible with the version released in 1997.