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.

  • 1
    Sexual relations are for married men and women and must always be open possibility of pregnancy.
    – Kris
    May 26, 2021 at 1:29
  • 1
    The cited list of dogmas does not contain dogmas on sexual relations either.
    – TomR
    May 26, 2021 at 2:14
  • Denzinger is what you're looking for I think, for Catholic dogmas (as of a century ago at least)
    – Peter Turner
    May 26, 2021 at 4:14
  • 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, 2021 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, 2021 at 13:39

1 Answer 1


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.

  • 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, 2021 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, 2021 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, 2021 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, 2021 at 4:30
  • 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 8, 2022 at 21:26

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .