If homosexuality is normal for a certain percentage of the population, should the Church continue to condemn or otherwise distinguish homosexual acts?

Introduction

Only in the Judeo - Christian west has homosexuality been vilified to the extent that it has throughout its history. "Primitive" peoples have had little difficulty accepting it, ancient Greece institutionalised it, the eastern religions of Hinduism and Islam do not see it as taboo. In many cultures and societies the homosexual has been ignored or accepted or encouraged or even seen as holy. The challenge for the Church today is to build sincere and genuinely constructive and accepting relations with the homosexual community and recognise homosexuals as fellow brothers and sisters; “Shifts in sexual milieus do not necessarily mean that Christian ethics needs to be rewritten entirely, but it may require radical reappropriation of the images by which it is informed.” (Cahill, L. S. “Between the Sexes” p151). The Church appears to be confused concerning the issues involved in the homosexuality debate. Not only do the different parts of the Church disagree on what should be done, but within each denomination there is disunity and disagreement. Opinion ranges from outrage and belligerent condemnation and even persecution, to sympathy and understanding and acceptance. “The diversity of both perspectives and patterns of sexuality within scripture make it impossible to speak of a single, consistent biblical ethic of sexuality.” (Arlene Swidler “Homosexuality and World Religions” p159). The absence of a centralised teaching on the issue (and indeed, the absence of a unified Church altogether) make it impossible to identify a generalisable attitude in the Church as a whole. “Nearly every traditional moral rule governing sexual behaviour in Western culture is today being challenged... (and) no question more intensely probed, more politically volatile, more personally troubling or liberating, than that if the moral status of same sex relations.” (Margaret A. Farley “An Ethic for Same-Sex Relations” p.93).

The objection to homosexuality that historically and theologically the Church has maintained, whether overtly and enthusiastically, or more subtly and with some tolerance, has been two fold: first, that sodomy is a perversion of natural functions and second, that sodomy does not result in procreation. These arguments have been supported with Biblical passages and are the logical outcomes of the Natural Law theory. Later in this essay issues of Scripture and Natural Law will be dealt with, initially however, it seems that this objection rests on two assumptions - the first theological and the second psychological. The first is that the natural human state is an expression of pure maleness and pure femaleness (as interpreted from the book of Genesis) and that the homosexual condition is a corruption of this expression as a result of the Fall. The second assumption is that the homosexual is mentally sick or ill; there is some disagreement as to how the afflicted should be dealt with and whether one can reverse this pathology. So, the Church has to defend the claim that homosexuality is abnormal, using Scripture and Natural Law theory, and it has to defend the underlying assumptions it has made in its condemnation. If this cannot be done, than the Church will have to change its attitudes and come to new ethical decisions regarding this issue of homosexuality. Further more, the question of homosexuality may be more important than just the ethical issue and may later be seen to throw light on deeper problems rooted in Christian theology and exegesis and may be seen to affect views on other ethical issues dealing with human sexuality and relations as a whole.

Definitions and Percentages.

Before any ethical undertaking of this scope, it is perhaps best to be clear on what we are talking about and how we can interpret the issues involved. First, we need to be clear as to the exact nature of sexual desire. This could become an essay in itself, so we should adopt Alan H. Goldman’s simple definition that “...sexual desire is essentially desire for physical contact itself: it is a bodily desire for the body of another that dominates our mental life for more or less brief periods.” (Goldman, “Plain Sex” in “Ethics in Practice” ed., Hugh laFollette p226). Also, “It is obvious that the desire for sex is not necessarily a desire to reproduce, that the psychological manifestation has become, if it were not always, distinct from its biological roots. There are many parallels... with other natural functions.” (ibid. p 227). I would like to alter Goldman’s account of the sex desire a little, and make the point that often it is not desire for sex, or indeed anothers body in some cases, but desire for orgasm that is at the root of the desire. This is made plainly apparent by the number of sexual paraphillias and the need of these particular manifestations to achieve orgasm in a certain way, which may not involve sex with another. This is an important point, especially concerning the theory of Natural Law, and one which we will return to later.

The exact definition of what (who) a homosexual is, is more complicated than one first assumes. “The homosexual orientation and relationship are today understood to differ from what most biblical and traditional authors interpreted simply as wilful perversion.” (Cahill “Between the Sexes” p146). A homosexual is a man or a woman attracted to a member or members of the same sex; this much is clear. However, the difference between a practising homosexual and a non-practising homosexual (or celibate homosexual) are less clear. Non-practising could mean that the homosexual denies his/her sexual feelings to the point of total abstinence, or it could refer to a homosexual who restricts him/herself to non-genital activity, or not participating in direct sexual intercourse or any other number or type of other restrictions. And again, practising homosexual could mean any number or type of activities, be they mere body contact, petting or full genital activities. For the purposes of this essay, a celibate homosexual is someone who abstains completely from homosexual activity in any form, and an active homosexual (or more simply, “homosexual”) is someone who desires same sex contact in a fully manifest sexual way, unless otherwise noted.

We must also be aware that there are different types of homosexual relationship. Some are not physical, but emotionally homosexual - love and affection is felt and shared by the homosexuals, even if not physically expressed. On the other hand, some homosexual relationships are just physical, with little or no emotional attachment, but this constitutes a human relationship nevertheless. Furthermore, some homosexual relations (like some heterosexual ones) are not on equal terms. Like all human relationships, some homosexual relations are abusive or exploitative. Others like pederasty (which takes place between a mature man and an immature boy) are merely assumed to be exploitative or abusive. Also, the homosexual (like other persons) may have had other sexual encounters of a non-homosexual nature. This does not mean that s/he is not a homosexual, or indeed of any other kind of sexuality. “These forms occur cross-culturally, although perhaps not universally. And it has been demonstrated by anthropologists and historians that different cultures vary in acceptance, rejection, and even institutionalisation of homosexuality.” (Cahill “Between the Sexes” p146).

These days, it is only roughly known what percentage of the population are homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual and so on, but Alfred Kinsey was among the first to establish some reliable studies into the variety and range of sexuality and sexual expression, and it is his information to which many studies on sexuality are indebted. “According to his studies, only 4 percent of males and 2 to 3 percent of females are ‘exclusively homosexual throughout their lives,’ but 37 percent of males and 13 percent of females have had at least one significant homosexual experience after adolescence. It also has been estimated that the population of the United States includes two million homosexuals.” (Cahill “Between the Sexes” p146). Also: “Homosexuality is treated permissively or encouraged in many societies. A study of 193 societies revealed that 28% of them gave social acceptance to male homosexuality and 11% accepted female homosexuality as well... No universal consent to the evil of any specific sexual behaviour can be found. At the same time there is no culture that does not employ some sexual taboo.” (Kosnik et al “Human Sexuality” p60-1). So, here we have reliable data for percentages of the population for whom homosexuality is normal. Though one could object that the data is loaded, outdated and such, it still gives us a general idea of what percentages we are dealing with here. However, we are asking if homosexuality is normal or not. If homosexuality is abnormal, then perhaps the Church can go some way as to being able to justify condemnation.

Is Homosexuality Abnormal?

This question may at first appear more important than it actually is. It seems that if homosexuality is abnormal then the Church has a right to condemn homosexual acts. However, this hasty conclusion rests on the assumption that there is something wrong with abnormality and that humans must conform to a paradigm example of human sexuality, as set by the Church. Sexual abnormality is merely non conformism and this is something to be encouraged, “...unless such liberty rules the Church, the Church is just another agency of social control, another support of the unjust status quo.” (Arlene Swidler “Homosexuality and World Religions” p145). One might go so far as to ask, is normality, with its restrictions and indeed with its banality and insipidity, in fact what is desirable?

Michael Levin argues that homosexuality (specifically male homosexuality) is abnormal and that this is a problem. It “..is a misuse of bodily parts.” (Levin “Why Homosexuality is Abnormal” in “Ethics in Practice” ed., Hugh laFollette p233). Clearly Levin argues from Natural Law and goes on to explain that the use of the penis for anal sex “..is likely to cause unhappiness because it leaves unfulfilled an innate and innately rewarding desire.” For Levin, homosexuality is abnormal because it is not prudent. However, Levin seems to misunderstand that sexuality is not an issue of prudence, but of preference. Levin tries to prove that homosexuality is abnormal because it causes misery, resting on the assumption that the homosexual does not find his sexuality innately rewarding or fulfilling, and also on the assumption that promiscuity (and that homosexuals are promiscuous) causes misery. Levin does not consider that misery is perfectly normal (and sometimes useful), nor does he consider that the only reason why some homosexuals are miserable in our culture is due to heterosexism and persecution. Also, “There are research findings which can be interpreted to support the view that personality development among homosexuals as a group is indistinguishable from that of heterosexuals as a group. Some conclude therefore that it is unscientific to view homosexuality as “abnormal” or a form of mental illness.” (Kosnik et al “Human Sexuality” p58). There is much is society that is viewed as abnormal, certain hair cuts, left-handedness, certain ways of behaviour. But all this points to is the relativism of social mores and norms, not the innate moral worth of certain human behaviours; or sexualities.

Scripture

Scripture has so very often been used as the main line of support with regards to the condemnation of homosexuality. We must ask: is there any substantive theme at the core of Scripture with regards to the problem of homosexuality? Robin Scroggs has suggested that ethics and Scripture must meet two tests: “reasonable similarity” of context and be constant with “the heart” of theology and ethics in Scripture and in “the historical Church”. Though this is helpful in many ways, it is also ambiguous, but allows contemporary experience to modify biblical authority. Cahill seems to be correct in the claim that “..sexual ethics presupposes a social vision..” (Cahill, L. S. “Between the Sexes” p140) and that these days, in our post-Lockean world of liberalism and enlightenment, where freedom and rationality are valued, present Western morality and thought is very different to that of the writings of the Bible, and its social vision. “Although the biblical materials do not yield a code of Christian sexual morality, specified in comprehensive detail, they do provide a normative overview of the meaning of sexuality, as well as some indication of the sorts of acts incompatible with that meaning.” (ibid. p143). The Bible favours the heterosexual without a doubt, but it does not rule out homosexuality as some would have us believe.

Specific passages in the Bible seems to condemn homosexuality, but these passages have been misinterpreted and misrepresented time and again. According to Virginia Mollenkolt, Christians have “..absolutized selected texts in an ahistorical manner.” (Swidler, A. “Homosexuality and World Religions” p157) Perhaps the most famous (infamous) are those passages taken from Leviticus, specifically Lev. 18:22 and 20:13. “The Church taught, and people universally believed on what they took to be excellent authority, that homosexual practise had brought a terrible divine vengeance upon the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah” (Swidler, A. “Homosexuality and World Religions” p 136), but “...no one with a scintilla of scientific training could reasonably believe that there is any causal connection between homosexuality and volcanic eruptions and earthquakes.” (laFollette, H. ed. “Ethics in Practice” p243). Also, Derrick S. Baily asks whether is it not the failure of hospitality that is the issue in the Sodom myth, rather than homosexuality? George Edwards suggests that it could be more than this, that the sin was gang rape and phallic aggression, “sexualized male violence, not homosexuality, is the proper subject of condemnation from these texts.” (Swidler, A. “Homosexuality and World Religions” p158). Kosnik agrees that sexual violence is the issue and compares the story of Sodom with that of Gideah in Jgs 19 to illustrate (Kosnik et al, “Human Sexuality” p191).

Examining these Old Testament texts in a non-fundamentalist way, one is made aware that scriptural basis for Church (especially Roman Catholic) condemnation is dependant upon ones exegesis and world-view. There are cultural assumptions in these texts, for example, the condemnations in Leviticus are cultic, not ethical. This is because homosexuality was a Canaanite practise and the Hebrews were concerned to differentiate themselves, “...lest the native culture threaten the survival of their group by infiltrating their own distinctive customs..” (Dynes, W. R. and Donaldson, S. ed. “Homosexuality and Religion and Philosophy” p257). This differentiation is illustrated by the purity laws and condemnation of homosexuality.

Christians have let go of other sexual prohibitions - sexual intercourse during menstruation, not requiring celibate priests, not mixing kinds of animals. Might not homosexuality be tolerated also? “By concentrating on homosexuality and choosing to reject as irrelevant the other teachings of the Bible, evangelical Christians are surely committing the very sin of which they accuse homophiles. They are pandering to the whims of the moment, rather than listening to the God of their hearts.” (The Guardian and The Observer 19 November 1996, p17 - “Vengeance is mine, saith the evangelical” by George Monbiot).

New Testament texts also require a more historical perspective in their interpretation. Romans 1:26-27 is the only passage that condemns lesbianism and only mutatis mutandis, probably due to androcentrism. Paul may have also been objecting to female erotic empowerment and the challenge to the hierarchy of God, Christ, man and woman, rather than lesbians themselves. John Boswell writes that homosexuality is not being condemned as unnatural but “..the real issue is idolatry and that Paul also mistakenly assumes that all persons are heterosexual, some of whom are forsaking their natural desires because of confusion and wilful debauchery.” (Swidler, A. “Homosexuality and World Religions” p158). Apart from this, the double standard with regards to female and male homosexuality has been prevalent for most of Christian tradition, this seems to be due to the androcentrism inherent in this religious tradition, and a reverence for semen based on the ignorance regarding human physiology.

1 Cor. 6:9 refers to “sexual perverts” and so only indirectly deals with homosexuality - that is if “sexual pervert” is to be understood as synonymous with “homosexual”; and as clarified above, this would be incorrect. Corinth, like many Greek urban centres had a reputation for sexual promiscuity, so this passage could be aimed at stopping that. This lends weight to the idea that New Testament texts are concerned with fidelity in sexual relations, not the expression of sex itself. Only 1 Tim. 1:10 makes an explicate reference to homosexuality, the passage about “sodomites” is clear condemnation, but Timothy and Titus provide other vices, none of which mention homosexuality though. It is listed, but not singled out. There is also some debate regarding the translation of “sodomite” here, and that 1 Tim, 1:10 maybe concerned with the male homosexual prostitute, not loving homosexual couples.

The Old Testament never explicitly identified the sin of Sodom with homosexuality (in Is. 1:10 it was injustice, in Jer. 23:14 it was lying and adultery, and in Ezechiel it was pride).“With a time of change and circumstances, there arose a change of interpretation. Sodom became a symbol of the depravity that Jews and later Christians found most abhorrent in Hellenistic society.” (Kosnik et al, “Human Sexuality” p193). Derrick S. Bailey (in “Homosexuality and the Western Tradition”) considers biblical interpretation with regards to homosexuality as having been mistaken, homosexuality has been condemned because of its associations with idolatry, cultic prostitution, sexual assault and violation of others’ rights. Nothing can be credible that is heedless of empirical data and reasoned argument. Science, sociology, anthropology and psychology cannot be ignored here, and they must be considered alongside modern exegesis. And Jesus Christ? He was silent about homosexuality. He neither affirmed or denied it, so maybe it just was not an issue, it was not high n his agenda. The message of love was though, and it seems that Christ did not mind how this was done. In fact “...the biblical stories of the love between David and Jonathan (1 Sam. 18-20) and the love between Christ and the beloved disciple (John 13:23 - 25) have served some pro-gay interpreters as biblical approval of same-sex love.” (Swidler, A. “Homosexuality and World Religions” p138).

Natural Law

The Theory of Natural Law has been a main defence against Christian condemnation of homosexuality for some time, but upon closer examination, one does not see how it is possible to have held such untenable views for so long. It takes a rather absurd leap of logic to infer that whatever is against nature is wrong and to make assumptions as to the correct purposes of subjects and objects in nature, however, Natural Law holds that whatever deliberately frustrates the design of nature is a perversion, and so it is wrong. Therefore, the use of the genitals for any other purpose than procreation is wrong. So, masturbation, homosexual relations and heterosexual activity that does not attempt at procreation is wrong.

Burton M. Leiser (in “Ethics in Practice”) has examined the concepts of nature and law to help illuminate the problems with this theory. Laws are relative and prescriptive. They are defined by, and define, social convention within a particular society. It is possible to violate them and there are often penalties if one does so. Laws can be modified and one must discover what these laws are if one does not want to break them. Nature on the other hand, or the laws of nature, are universal and descriptive. Everyone is affected by them and they tell us what happens, they are not commands. They cannot possibly be violated (unless one believes in miracles) and consequently, there are no penalties. Finally, the laws of nature are discovered, not created. From this it is obvious to see that it is nonsense to claim that homosexuality violates such laws. In defence, if the theologian were to say that then homosexuality is unnatural (as opposed to a violation of law), then it can be pointed out that this does not make it wrong. Much of what is unnatural (or artificial) is not wrong or bad. This essay could not be written were it not for a lot of artificiality, and there is a likelihood that you or I may not be here were it not for this artificiality with which we surround ourselves. Also, “Homosexual behaviour simply cannot be considered unnatural in this sense. There is nothing artificial about it.” (ibid. p248).

Furthermore, should not we ask whether the genitals are for nothing other than procreation? We must not ignore the sheer pleasure genital activities bring, nor how they can result in an increase in emotional intimacy between participants, how sex (in whatever form) can strengthen love. The anus is an erogenous zone, and stimulation of the male prostate gland in the rectum can have exquisite effects. Would it be unnatural to not feel these sensations? The Marquis de Sade has much to say on the issue of Natural Law, and though one must be wary of his almost anthropomorphic and nearly paganistic account of Nature, he had spent much effort in justifying deviant sex, including sodomy; and for this he is to be hailed as an ethicist. Sade’s view of nature is reductionistic, humans are utterly base with nothing but subjective, egoistic values and the world is nihilistic. For Sade sex is for nothing but pleasure, he asks that if it were solely for procreation, then why is it we can sodomise and masturbate and prevent pregnancy? He asks “Is it really so firmly established that Nature has so great a need for this overcrowding as they would like to have us believe?” (The Marquis de Sade, “Philosophy in the Bedroom” p 231). And he sites anthropological examples of the relative value of sodomy, “We discover a hemisphere, we find sodomy in it.” (ibid. p277). For Sade, the fact that we can do these things, that they are done, that nothing stops us and that they give pleasure are enough to justify non-procreative sexual acts. “Both tools and body organs can be used for a multitude of tasks... The assumption that any organ has one and only one “proper” function is indefensible.... (it) is arbitrary and without foundation in scientific fact.” (laFollette, H. ed. “Ethics in Practice” p 249-250). Indeed, it seems that human sexual desire is for orgasm (in a large variety of ways), as well as procreation and physical and emotional bonding. Christian Natural Law theory rests upon a tautology, the argument is question begging. Here, homosexuality is wicked because it is unnatural, and what is unnatural is wicked. Elementary logic reveals the circular argument at work.

Conclusion

Having established that homosexuality is normal for a certain percentage of the population, it is clear that the Church should not condemn homosexual acts. However, it should still distinguish them. Having briefly touched upon some of the many issues involved in this short investigation, it is clear that homosexuality and Christian tradition cannot be reconciled. The institutionalised stigmatising of homosexuality, the lingering, medieval fear of sex, sexuality and sexual expression in the Church and the fear and bigotry fostered by a body/spirit dualism and a man/woman dualism means that the Church must abandon much of its previous sexual tradition to make way for a new Christian sexual ethic. The Church has elevated the spirit above the body in value, which has brought about a fixation with, and repulsion of, bodily functions, especially sex, and especially homosexual sex; rested largely upon physiological ignorance and Scriptural misinterpretation. Psychologically, the Christian church has placed religion and sex in the position of rivals for human allegiance, sin has been vividly portrayed in terms of sex and the stoical denial of humanities natural urges has been accompanied by a philosophy that exalts suffering and deprivation. Also, homosexuality for the Church challenges the patriarchal cultural pattern of male dominance and female submission, representing a break with the strongest and most familiar control on sexuality. The contempt for femaleness also influenced the condemnation of homosexuality as it has been seen to be effeminate. Perhaps the Church has even envied this non-conformist sexual expression, indeed, it could be seen to have a deep seated middle-class fear of non-conformity and disruption and conflict. “The sources of the peculiar horror of homosexuality in our culture are obscure and complex. The Christian tradition, both on the formal and on the popular levels, has had something to do with the case... (but) whatever judgment may be made on homosexuality, Church and society owe to human beings a concern for justice and a respect for dignity and privacy. Morality is not a valid context for cruelty.” (Roger L. Shinn, “Homosexuality: Christian Conviction and Inquiry”, in Edward Batchelor, Jr., ed., “Homosexuality and Ethics” pp. 4-5).

The problem of homosexuality is in fact the problem of oppression, sexual injustice, homophobia and heterosexism. Homosexuals are calling for the Church to repent and to renew, to dismantle sexual oppression in the Church as well as society. But it is not only the happiness of people that is at stake here, “At stake this time, from a feminist liberation perspective, are not the bodies of witches and faggots, but the nature and destiny of God.” (Dynes, W. R. and Donaldson, S. ed. “Homosexuality and Religion and Philosophy” p172). Unless the Church wants to be viewed as repressive and archaic, and as an institution of conformism and ignorance, it will have to cease the condemnation of homosexuality. However, the Church should still distinguish homosexuality. The Church should distinguish it in a positive light, one of acceptance, in the sense that homosexuality is a sexual expression of the Churches central teaching - love. In this light the homosexual should not just be tolerated, but affirmed.

For Christians, love is the central meaning and spiritual end of human life. Christian sexual morality has for too long been influenced by Old Testament sexual morality, and not enough by the New Testament love ethic. “Our own sense is that homosexuality and many other moral issues only stand in a fully Christian context when the love of God exemplified by Christ and given in the Holy Spirit is the prime authority. That love seems to have directed Christ’s own quite radical ethical attitudes (consider his approach to “sinners”) and to have relativized particular forms of behaviour.” (Swidler, A. “Homosexuality and World Religions” p145). Is not personal love between two people more important than how it is expressed and more important than procreation? Catholic sexual ethics with regards to procreation are very questionable in these times of lethal STD’s like HIV. And with rising divorce rates, changes in family structure and the adoption of new ways of relating and fucking and loving, it would seem more sensible, and indeed caring, if the Church were to encourage love in whatever way it manifests. The Church needs a sexual ethic of mutual consent, respect and commitment and one of tolerance in how this ethic is expressed. Be that in a homosexual sense or any other that held these tenants, these foundations of love, for “...we are not bound to be classified as creatures limited to a given set of sexual habits hemming us in and assigning us to one sexual category or another, some “acceptable” and some “deviant”.” (Batchelor, E. “Homosexuality and Ethics” p153). The complexity of human sexuality and of human love can no longer be dismissed or damned according to tradition. The Church should respect and encourage the individual feelings of love and loving sexual expression as beautiful, natural and God given. This question of the Church and homosexuality, should persuade us "that we are faced less with an aberration than with a mystery: the nature of love itself." (Kosnik et al, “Human Sexuality” p206). The Church now must take up these issues and set about spreading this new sexual ethic of love in the spirit that Jesus Christ taught, that of agape.

Bibliography

Batchelor, E. “Homosexuality and Ethics” (The Pilgrim Press 1980)

Bleys, R. C. “The Geography of Perversion” (New York University Press 1995)

Cahill, L. S. “Between the Sexes - Foundations for a Christian Ethics of Sexuality” (Fortress Press 1985)

Dynes, W. R. and Donaldson, S. ed. “Homosexuality and Religion and Philosophy” (Garland Publishing, Inc. 1992)

Kosnik et al, “Human Sexuality - New Directions in American Catholic Thought” (Paulist Press 1977)

laFollette, H. ed. “Ethics in Practice - An Anthology” (Blackwell 1997)

Monbiot, G. in The Guardian and The Observer on CD-ROM, “Vengeance is mine, saith the evangelical” 19 November 1996

Nugent, R. ed. “A Challenge to Love: Gay and Lesbian Catholics in the Church” (New York: Crossroad. 1986)

The Marquis de Sade, “Justine and other writings” (Arrow Books Ltd 1991)

Southern, R. W. “Saint Anselm - a portrait in a landscape” (Cambridge University Press 1990)

Swidler, A. “Homosexuality and World Religions” (Trinity Press 1993)

 My Writings:

Other:

Links:

Please consider making a small donation to keep this site ad-free.