THE UNITED CATHOLIC CHURCH

    Ecumenical, Inclusive, Non-Judgmental, and Independent;       

Christianity and Homosexuality

by Most Rev. Dr. Robert M. Bowman

The Morality of Love

As with any other subject, the issue of homosexuality should be approached from general principles and a well-developed moral theology. This is not easy, because it as an emotional issue. Nonetheless, let us try.

Jesus himself said not one word about homosexuality — at least not that got recorded in the Bible. But he did give us the general principles from which we would develop an attitude toward any such issue. Those general principles are summed up in these simple words: "Love God, and love your neighbor as yourself." All else is either contained in or superseded by these words. Christian morality is a morality of love, nothing else.

Even the negative rules of our faith (many of the ten commandments are expressed that way) are merely explicit statements about actions and attitudes which violate the command to love. If we love our neighbor, we won’t kill him or sleep with his wife or steal his property or damage his reputation with slander or even covet his wife or property. So these ancient commandments are not rules in addition to the command to love; they are merely detailed instructions on carrying it out. Obviously, the first few commandments are about our love relationship with God and our parents.

The morality of love is God’s blueprint for happiness. It was given for the benefit of both the lover and the loved. Like all of God’s laws, the commandments are given for our benefit. As Jesus said, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." God does not make arbitrary rules. Even the ancient Jewish dietary laws had the purpose of protecting people from bacteria and other dangers which people did not even know existed. There are no additions or exceptions to the morality of love. As Father Richard P. McBrien (Professor of Theology at Notre Dame) says, "Ours is a religion of relationship, not rule-keeping."

This is the framework into which all moral theology must fit. Certainly homosexuality is no exception.

Sexual Morality and the Bible

Before attempting to develop a Christian attitude toward homosexuals and homosexual activity, it is necessary to say a few words about sexual morality in general. First, "sexual morality" is neither redundant nor an oxymoron (like "giant shrimp" or "military intelligence" for example). Though many seem to think of "immorality" and "sex" as synonyms, they are not. Ask many Christians for examples of immorality and they will say, "nudity, pornography, homosex-uality" and perhaps "adultery." All these have to do (in one way or another) with the sixth commandment. But what happened to the other nine?

Scripture, in contrast, has relatively little to say about sexual immorality. Even the Old Testament gives much more emphasis to greed, self-righteousness, vindictiveness, and other sins against relationship and the command to love. Amos, Isaiah, and the other prophets railed against mistreatment and exploitation of the poor — not against sexual excesses.

Of course the Old Testament also tells the stories of Onan, David and Bathsheba, and Sodom. But even in these instances, the fundamental sin was one of relationship, not sex per se.

When Onan withdrew from his sister-in-law and spilled his seed on the ground, his sin was not masturbation. It was failing to fulfill his duty to his dead brother by impregnating his childless wife (in accordance with the custom of the time). The nature of the sin would have been no different if he had had no sexual contact with her at all. That some of our churches have used this story to lay guilt trips on adolescents having wet dreams or exploring their own bodies is almost criminal. It is also ludicrous to extrapolate from this story into a ban on almost all forms of birth control. Yes, Onan’s sin involved birth control. But it was the circumstances of the act that made it sinful. The sin was his failure to fulfill the demands of love and of his relationship with his dead brother and his wife. His sin would have been no less had he used abstinence to accomplish his birth control. There are many circumstances today in which a husband can sin against love and his relationship with his wife if he fails to use birth control. Unfortunately, some churches have gotten bogged down with the legalisms of the act and have forgotten the importance of motivations; they have lost sight of the general principles of the morality of love.

David’s sin was about as blatantly a sexual sin as you can find. He lusted after Bathsheba, committed adultery with her, and, in order to have her, killed her husband, Uriah the Hittite. Yet when the Lord (through Nathan the prophet) rebukes David, it is not for the sexual act, but for his injustice to Uriah. The Lord tells David, "I gave you all Saul’s wives. If that wasn’t enough for you, I would have given you more. But you had to take the only wife this man had, and while he was serving you and being loyal to you at that." You see, even this sin of David was a violation of his relationship with Uriah, more than anything else. The analogy Nathan uses to get David to realize what he had done has no reference to sex in it at all. Moreover, David’s punishment involves the loss of three of his sons. But he is allowed many years of sexual happiness with Bathsheba, and one of his sons by her, Solomon, inherits the throne. Since the point of so many of these stories is that God’s punishment fits the crime, it is clear that what matters most to God was David’s injustice and violence toward Uriah, not his sexual pleasure with Bathsheba.

It is the story of Sodom, of course, which most closely touches the issue of homosexuality. It has become so closely related that the act of anal sex (whether between members of the same or opposite sex) is called sodomy. But the final straw which brought on Sodom’s destruction was the Sodomites’ attempt to break into Lot’s house and rape the two strangers staying there. Violent rape is more a violation of the commandment "Thou shall not kill" than of "Thou shall not commit adultery." The Sodomite men were also violating hospitality, which was so important to the nomadic peoples of the time. What’s more, many of the Sodomites had wives, so their sexual activities were not due to an exclusive homosexual orientation. Their acts were perversions of their own nature, not results of it . (Two of the men destroyed in Sodom were Lot’s sons-in-law.) The actions of the Sodomites violated the morality of love, not just some technical proscription against anal sex.

Leviticus calls lying with a person of the same sex an "abomination" — a term meaning something which causes great revulsion in others (and the mere thought of it generally has that effect on most heterosexuals). It should be noted that the word "abomination" does not always mean that something is wrong or immoral. That the penalty for such an act was death, however, strongly suggests that it was considered so.

Why were homosexual acts considered wrong? For one thing, God’s chosen people were engaged in a procreation race with the cultures around them, and homosexuality is lousy procreation strategy. Secondly, people then did not know that natural homosexuals existed. Most same-sex activity was engaged in by natural heterosexuals seeking an easy way to additional genital pleasure. This was rightly considered a perversion of one’s nature. Third, the surrounding cultures used young boys who were enslaved and trained to give pleasure to the rich and powerful. Such exploitation (of either sex) is clearly a gross violation of the morality of love. Finally, homosexual activity was engaged in by surrounding cultures as ritual worship to their pagan gods. For one of the chosen people to do likewise was akin to worshipping a golden calf — it was a violation of their covenant relationship with God.

None of these Old Testament scriptures deals with sexual acts between two consenting adults in a monogamous, caring relationship. Therefore none of them gives us much help in taking a moral position on such a case. It appears, however, that Jewish law considered homosexual acts immoral under all circumstances.

The New Testament goes further in the direction of emphasizing a religion of relationship rather than rule-keeping. Even more than the Old Testament, it accentuates the importance of the virtues of peace, justice, concern for the poor, and care of the outcast — and the relative unimportance of sexual practice.

In the whole New Testament, homosexual practices are referred to only three times (all by Paul). In Romans 1: 18-27, Paul says that homosexual practices are God’s punishment for idolatry. (This passage is the first indication that homosexual

tendencies are not a matter of choice.) In 1 Corinthians 6, Paul lists practicing homosexuals among those who will not inherit the kingdom of God. But then he goes on to say, "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." This tells us that homosexuals were not excluded from the church, and that they can be saved. It infers, however, that they were required to become celibate to do so. Finally, in 1 Timothy 1:8, Paul lists "perverts" among a long list of those "not in accordance with good doctrine." Paul obviously considered homosexual acts immoral.

In the Gospels, Jesus himself never mentions homosexuality. And he seldom even discusses sexual sin. In contrast, the Gospels are full of Jesus’ teachings against self-righteousness, greed, pride, bigotry, sexism, racism, and hypocrisy. Like Amos and Isaiah before him, Jesus roundly condemns the rich and powerful who exploit, cheat, or ignore the poor. For Jesus, immorality had much more to do with economic injustice than with sex. He taught a morality of love.

General Conclusions on Sexual Morality

From our general principles and the guidance of scripture, we can come to certain conclusions about sexual morality. The first is that any forced, violent, or non-consensual sex is a violation of love and therefore immoral. This includes rape (of either sex), statutory rape (the seduction or recruiting of those not mature enough to exercise informed consent), pedophilia, and incest against a young person (again, of either sex). These crimes are rightly condemned by all Christians.

Our second conclusion is that even consensual sex (like that between David and Bathsheba) can be immoral if it violates relationships. Obvious examples are adultery (which sins against the innocent party or parties), promiscuity (of any kind), and fornication (at least when engaged in casually without a long-term committed relationship, for this is a sin against a potential child). Under certain circumstances, divorce or even the refusal of sexual relations within marriage can be a sin against an innocent partner. Masturbation can be sinful if it is used to allow one to deny a spouse, for then it is a violation of love and relationship, the foundational principles of Christian morality. (On the other hand, masturbation would seem to be a positive good if used to enable one to avoid making demands on a partner who wishes to avoid sexual contact for a period of time. Even better is "mutual masturbation" by marital partners when intercourse is impossible or impractical. It is regrettable that such practices are condemned by some as illicit means of birth control. Withdrawal, for example, is only wrong if it is against the wishes of one’s partner, as in the case of Onan and his brother’s widow.)

Because love and relationship are imprecise concepts, the above conclusions should be viewed with flexibility, understanding, compassion, and forgiveness. A man who throws off a loving wife to marry a younger woman has sinned against his wife. He shouldn’t be thrown out of the church; but neither should he be told he did nothing wrong. If he hasn’t remarried yet, he should be told to go back to his wife. If he has remarried, he should be told to faithfully and willingly provide alimony and child support, to make restitution in whatever way is possible, to seek forgiveness and reconciliation, and to avoid doing the same thing with his second wife. Is he sinning every time he makes love to his second wife? In a legalistic sense, perhaps. But his real sin was leaving his first wife. And what of the innocent, abandoned wife? Is she bound to a life of celibacy and loneliness until her scoundrel former husband dies? Hardly. To require this would be legalism of the worst kind. If we were to say that the poor woman is condemned for all eternity if she remarries, but that she could murder her ex-husband, confess,and then marry again with God’s blessing would be to do the Pharisees one better!

Application to Homosexuality

How then, do we apply the above principles and considerations to the thorny issue of homosexuality?

First, I think we must carefully distinguish between what one is and what one does. Clearly, it is not a sin to have been born a homosexual, any more than it is a sin to have been born left-handed. Of course, some Christians will try to deny that homosexuals are born that way. They see it as a chosen life style. (Why on earth anyone would choose to undergo the pain, suffering, discrimination, and abuse routinely heaped upon homosexuals is beyond me.) The evidence says that those who call it a "chosen" lifestyle are wrong. Some may be seduced or recruited into homosexuality at a tender age. These may, with time and counseling, be restored to their natural heterosexual state. But the majority of homosexuals are born that way. They have no choice about their orientation — only about their practice.

Can you imagine the pain an eleven-year-old boy goes through when he discovers he is different, and thinks he is the only one in the world that way? Can you imagine the suffering he endures when ridiculed and rejected by his peers ... and then perhaps even by his family?

Some years ago, the San Francisco Examiner published excerpts from the diary of a young man named Bobby Griffith: "Feb 19, 1982. Why did you do this to me, God? Am I going to hell? That’s the gnawing question that’s always drilling little holes in the back of my mind. Please don’t send me to hell. I’m really not that bad, am I? ... Life is so cruel and unfair." Not much later, Bobby Griffith took his own life, one of countless thousands of gay teenagers to do so. One of my childhood friends committed suicide, too. The signs of his gayness were there, but not the signs of his unhappiness.

A predominantly heterosexual society makes life for the gay adolescent pretty miserable. Then upon this unfortunate individual the church often heaps more coals. If he is Roman Catholic, he is told he has an "intrinsic disorder" and an "inclination to moral evil." If he is evangelical, he is told he must repent of his perversion and get treatment to restore him to normalcy.

Why do we treat our children this way? Above all else, we must state unequivocally that being a homosexual is not in and of itself sinful. Beyond that, we must say that it is not a perversion. For them, it’s natural. For them to marry a person of the opposite sex and pretend to be what they’re not — that is a perversion. Then (and this is the hard part) we must find a way to let all those awakening adolescent homosexuals out there know that they’re not sinners or perverts, and that there is a future for them and they don’t have to kill themselves. We must stop the slaughter! (Of course, when schools try to do this, they’re accused of corrupting children by offering them an alternate lifestyle. Does anyone really think straight kids will become gay because of what they’re taught in sex education?)

Certainly all adolescents should be taught abstinence. They should be taught to be faithful to the future mate they haven’t even met. They should be taught that promiscuity is always wrong. But while "straight" kids can be taught to wait until marriage, what can homosexuals be taught to wait for? Death?

This brings us to the subject of what homosexuals do. We have already determined that they are forbidden to rape or be promiscuous or attempt to seduce or recruit minors or adults already committed to another. At the same time, we indicated that masturbation is usually acceptable. We have also said that it is unnatural and unfair to the spouse to attempt a heterosexual marriage for appearance, convenience, or whatever reason. In our morality of love and relationship, the only reason marriage should be entered into is because of love — the kind of love which can grow into selfless, sacrificial love. This is extremely difficult in the absence of sexual attraction. A sham marriage is unfair to the spouse, and too often results in failure, divorce, and guilt. If a person knows they are homosexual when they get married and withholds this information from their spouse, this deception is a serious sin.

To summarize thus far: a homosexual can masturbate, but can’t rape or be promiscuous or attempt to seduce or recruit minors or marry under false pretenses or have sex with adults committed to somebody else.

This leaves only one issue to be decided — the morality of homosexual acts between two consenting adults in a monogamous, committed relationship similar to heterosexual marriage.

Sex and Commitment

For a thousand years, sex even within heterosexual marriage was considered sinful (yet necessary for procreation). Some theologians, in their unbounded generosity, decided that marital sex for the sole purpose of having children was OK — provided you didn’t enjoy it.

The church has changed its position over the centuries, and now just about all Christians believe that marital sex is a positive good, in and of itself, even when procreation is impossible.

Father Edward Vacek, S.J., professor of Christian Ethics at the Jesuit School of Theology in Chicago, lists the following values of marital sex: pleasure, romantic feelings, ecstacy, companionship, mutual support, sexual outlet, intimacy, and interpersonal communication. He questions whether it is right to deny homosexuals these values simply because their acts are not open to procreation. "One biological deficiency then turns all too easily into biological, psychological, rational, and spiritual alienation."

Father Vacek notes other areas where the church has changed. In Biblical times, it was sinful for a son to see his father naked, or for a husband to have intercourse with his wife during the seven days of her menstrual cycle. Polygamy was permitted, and in certain cases, even required, while celibacy was considered abnormal. If these Biblical standards have been reversed, why not the ban on homosexual acts?

In some states, sodomy is a crime even between husband and wife. These laws are part of our heritage as a "Christian nation." Yet today, nearly all Christian denominations consider anything a consenting husband and wife do in their bedroom to be moral. Most Christian counselors consider oral sex a good and healthy part of marital sex. So these acts are no longer considered inherently sinful. It depends on who does them. What makes the difference? Gender? No. While moral for a married couple, these acts are sinful for a heterosexual couple if performed outside a committed relationship. Then why is it not the same for homosexuals? If it is the relationship which makes the difference, why shouldn’t these acts be immoral and sinful for a gay couple meeting in a bathhouse, but good and moral for a gay couple in a committed monogamous relationship? Is not the general principle on which all our morality is based "relationship and love"? Is that not what Jesus tried to drum into us over and over again?

Of course, some will respond that there is no such thing as a committed monogamous relationship between homosexuals (at least male homosexuals); that they are inherently promiscuous, that they have multiple partners before pairing up, and probably after as well; and that since there is no binding legal and moral commitment to a partner, gays drift from one "committed" relationship to another.

Sadly, all this is too often true. Unfortunately, it is also true of most heterosexual relationships in America. But this sad truth doesn’t change the fact that faithful life-long relationships between a man and a woman — both of whom were virgins when they got married — is not only the ideal, but the standard. Moreover, the rarity of such a relationship doesn’t make it any less good. On the contrary, it makes it a triumph of love and relationship over the beguiling temptations of a corrupt society.

Bishop Lowell O. Erdahl of the American Lutheran Church, in his book "Ten For Our Time: A New Look at the Ten Commandments" has the following to say about marriage:

"Marriage is sustained by love; but the reverse is also true. Love is sustained by marriage. It is well we can’t just walk off and forget each other on a moment’s notice. The legal obligations about which we may sometimes complain give us a framework of security in which we can be more free and honest with each other. They keep us together through troubled days and give us time to be renewed again in love toward one another. Living together or engaging in premarital relations as a test of sexual compatibility is like testing a parachute by jumping out of a fifth story window. The conditions are not right. The right conditions are present only in a relationship of personal and public commitment in which it is no longer necessary to test anything."

Homosexuals, of course, are denied the right to make such a binding, public commitment. Then we condemn them for being promiscuous. But we don’t do anything about it.

Today, there is a debate raging about making marriage available to homosexual couples. Whether the church does so is, of course, for each church to decide. But it would seem that civil society would be much better off by making some kind of binding commitment available to homosexual couples — and then enforcing it. It should be at least as difficult for same-sex couples to break up as it is for the rest of us. ( As a matter of fact, society would be better off if we made it much more difficult for heterosexual marriages to be broken. Divorce is too easy and too common. Those who go through half a dozen or so "marital" partners make a mockery of the institution.)

The words "marriage," "matrimony," and "wedding" could be reserved for heterosexual unions. New names could be invented for their gay counterparts (perhaps "pairiage," "pairimony," and "welding"). Whatever it is called, some sort of binding commitment must be made available to homosexual couples. Which of the various legal rights and responsibilities now enjoyed by heterosexual couples they would share is a matter of public policy. As joint economic units, it would seem proper for them to have similar medical benefits, inheritance rules, and joint IRS filing regulations as the rest of us. Such things as adoption rights might best be decided after it becomes clear if such arrangements are stable.

Homosexuals and the Church

Even if homosexual couples were granted the right to live together as economic units, the churches would not have to recognize sexual acts between them as moral. Some churches might decide that such couples are called by the scriptures to a life of celibate companionship. Of course, such standards can be overruled by the conscience of the individual. A majority of Roman Catholics practice birth control and see no need to confess it, because they in good conscience believe it is not sinful. Gay couples could come to a similar conclusion. Others, however, might accept the biblical proscriptions and attempt to live in celibacy. Many would on occasion fail. Their church would then assure them of the Lord’s forgiveness for their failure always to live up to this difficult standard. But — and here is the difference with much current practice — their church would not kick them out or refuse them the sacraments or brand them as "living in sin" or in any way make them feel less than human.

The church is not a country club for saints, it is a hospital for sinners. Just about all of us are "living in sin" in one way or another. Most of us have the advantage of doing it in private or with the cloak of anonymity. Two men living together, on the other hand, find themselves branded as habitual and unrepentant sinners whether they are or not. They are so branded even if living lives of total celibacy. Is this right? Is it Christian?

Sure, if a person comes to his pastor and says, "I’m living in a homosexual relationship, and we’re doing thus and so, and I don’t know if it’s right or wrong; can you give me some guidance?" then the pastor can give whatever guidance he feels appropriate. He might ask, "Are you being monogamous?", "Is your partner?", "Did he have partners before you?", "Have you both been tested for HIV?", "Is he a friend?", "What kind of commitment have you made to each other?" As a result, his counsel might be that he is doing nothing wrong and should have a clear conscience. Or he might counsel celibacy, or that the young man get out of the situation altogether.

If, however, they are openly promiscuous, the church should express its disapproval. The church does have the right — even the responsibility — to discipline those who are publicly flaunting their rejection of the church’s standards. (See 1 Cor 5: 9-13)

But under no circumstances should a Christian (pastor or not) approach someone apparently living in a same-sex relationship and tell them that they are living in sin and must stop it if they want to be a member of the church, or tell them that they are going to hell if they don’t mend their ways. To do so is to make unwarranted judgments both about their behavior and about the state of their consciences.

The bottom line is that sex (homosexual or heterosexual) outside of a loving, committed relationship is always immoral. Scripture seems to say that same-sex relations are immoral even within such an arrangement. If that is so, we don’t know why. God doesn’t make capricious rules, and monagamous homosexuality seems at least as innocent as masturbation or healing on the sabbath. It comes down to one’s view of scripture and its relation to reason.

One thing we do know. Only by holding out some hope of a life of companionship, fulfillment, and (simultaneously) good conscience can we prevent the current slaughter of the innocents from continuing. Only by finding a place within our Christian morality of love and relationship for those born gay can we prevent the suicides of countless thousands more of our teenagers.

Whether or not we offer them our full blessing on what they are inclined to do, we must offer them our acceptance for who they are. We must dissuade them from engaging in the promiscuity of the gay bars and bath-houses. We must encourage them to form life-long partnerships with others of their persuasion. Then if in good conscience they choose to be sexually active, we must respect that. And if, guided by the scriptures and the church’s historic stand, they choose to attempt a life of celibacy ... and fail, we must assure them that we heterosexuals often fail to live up to our standards too, but that, fortunately, ours is a very compassionate God, and His church is charged with dispensing forgiveness, not condemnation.

Finally, a few words about AIDS. (1) It is not God’s punishment for homosexuality (although I believe it could be God’s punishment for promiscuity, by either homosexuals or heterosexuals). (2) Many with AIDS are innocent, including spouses and children of promiscuous partners. (3) Even if a person has contracted AIDS through behavior we consider sinful, they are still worthy of compassion and love. None of us escapes condemnation except through the mercy of God and the cross of Christ. (4) Many AIDS patients, however they got the disease, are joining their suffering with that of Christ. (5) It was the biblical equivalent of AIDS patients — lepers — that Jesus loved so much and often healed. He saved his condemnation for the pharisees, the religious leaders of the day. With whom do we choose to identify — the lepers or the pharisees?

============================

Return to Theological Reflections Papers List