How is that Good News?

Well I am back in sunny Rome again. Although it is absolutely pouring down outside my window and has been for three days – on and off. It was good to be back home for Christmas and catch up with people, however, manic that might be. You basically have two weeks to cram in as many people as you can. I have to admit I was not quite myself for some of the holidays as I think it has finally come to crunch time as to whether I stay in seminary or not. I just don’t know if I can accept some pretty important proclamations of the Church regarding various moral issues. One of which is the Churches stance on homosexuality

It came to the fore when a relative visited briefly over Christmas (someone I had not seen for over five years). He is in a long term relationship and lives with his partner. He must have known I was training for the priesthood. Although I am probably mistaken in thinking this: I wondered if he thought I was against his way of life or if he had judged me according to the morals and values of the Catholic Church – who could blame him if he did, after all as a priest these are the teachings I am supposed to uphold.

To add to this, on the second weekend back we took part in a ‘Human Development’ programme concerning the issue of, ‘The Joy of Priesthood and the Celibate Commitment.’ In which a significant proportion of the time was given over to the sexual orientation of the seminarian. The Purpose of which was to make each of us examine our own sexuality and see where we fit on the spectrum of sexual preference. Needless to say this sparked up a huge debate, both in the session itself and also around college for several days.

I know where I stand on the issue of homosexuality, but given the recent interest I thought I would examine the Church’s reasons for saying, any physical expression of homosexual action is seen as being “intrinsically disordered, and in no case can be approved of…” It then goes on to say, “…special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that … (it) is a morally acceptable option. It is not”.[1]

Firstly the Churches position rests on scripture, the prime example being Leviticus 18:22; “You must not lie with a man as with a woman: that is an abomination”. On the surface this seems a fairly obvious passage highlighting the intrinsic disorderdness of homosexuality, but that is the Catholic Churches interpretation. Within the Anglican Communion Bishop John Habgood (formerly Achbishop of York) says that; “When Leviticus was written, the real offence in the idea of ‘a man lying with a man’ was that it entailed a violation of male superiority. It was seen as shameful for a man to be treated as a substitute woman. In short, it was more about gender relationships than sexual orientation.” So basically it was the act of feminising a man that was considered wrong, not sexual orientation. I am not sure if this is a convincing argument in regard to this particular passage, although it does highlight the issue of whether or not there can only be one valid interpretation of scripture. The Catholic Church would say that there can be, namely itself. Scripture and Church tradition are irrevocably linked and scripture cannot be interpreted in such a way that contradicts the Churches living tradition.[2] Even if this is the correct interpretation, given all the advances made in the fields of psychology, sociology and genetics is this position still credible?

Which brings me onto the next reason why the Church says to be a homosexual is disordered – nature vs. nurture. According to Fr. N (who is in his final year of clinical psychology) and Fr. S. (who was my Scientific Psychology tutor in first year Philosophy), there is an intense debate raging, both within and outside of the Church as to whether or not homosexual orientation is a result of life choices, influences and upbringing, something within the genetic make up of an individual or a mixture of both. In fact studies are being undertaken on identical twins separated at birth in order to see how life style influences sexual orientation and development. Obviously if both twins have had different upbringings and are of the same sexual persuasion then genetics can arguably play a significant factor in determining ones sexual persuasion. If the twins are of differing sexual orientations then arguably it is the upbringing and societal influences. In a nut shell though this debate has not been clarified and I would doubt if it ever will be, and therefore, does not stop people putting forward arguments in favour of or against homosexuality.

The Church says it goes against the natural order of creation; “Human beings… are the work of God himself; and in the complementarity of the sexes, they are called to reflect the inner unity of the Creator. They do this in… their cooperation with him in the transmission of life by mutual donation of the self to the other.”[3] If it is the case that homosexuality is not a genetic trait and is a result of nurture then the Church has a stronger basis on which to lay its claims, however, there is a vast body of evidence which points to the fact that animals also engage in homosexual activity. Can this be a result of environmental factors, or is it more likely to be contained within the genetic makeup of an individual or subgroup? This evidence still does not present a strong enough argument in favour or against homosexuality in human beings if one thinks we are more than a composition of genes aka more than the sum of our parts.

The Church obviously does and presents a third argument against homosexuality. This is contained within the doctrine of ‘Original Sin’. Stating that at a set point in time human beings turned away from God and thus every other subsequent human being would be born in a sinful imperfect state because of that initial turning away. The Church therefore, says that the homosexual condition is also a result of the fall of man and “this truth about persons being in the image of God has been obscured by original sin…” and “…the human body still retains its spousal significance but this is now clouded by sin.”[4] So even if it where down to nature this could and would not overturn the Churches view as it holds that our genetic make up is flawed anyway because of the actions of one or a group of human beings at a point in history. Know one would doubt that human beings can be generally bad, selfish, power hungry individuals or groups and could ultimately do allot better – so there is an element of truth in the doctrine of original sin, but to say it started because of the actions of one or some individuals, at an unspecified point is no more accurate than to say maybe it was part of Gods plan for creation that a proportion of human kind be homosexual or of varying degrees in a spectrum of sexuality. Plus even St Thomas Aquinas and the Church would conclude that our souls are inseparably linked with and therefore incomplete unless united with our bodies given the belief that all humanity will be reunited with their bodies in a glorified state at the end of time. So although I am more than the sum of my parts I am also irrevocably linked with them and they are more than a part of me they are me. How can asking homosexuals to deny or fix a part of themselves be right?

The Church asks homosexuals to be chaste and celibate forbidding them any physical expression of their sexuality unless they vanquish themselves from what it labels a ‘disorder’. The question you have got to ask yourself is, if taken in this way; how is the Gospel good news if you are gay? In my mind the simple answer is it is not. This question has obviously been point blank refused by the Church claiming that biblical authority has been denied, and also Church tradition. Homosexuals are called to ‘… take up their cross (and) …to sacrifice (their) own will in obedience to the will of the Lord…” either remain celibate or try to become heterosexual for the salvation of their souls which is an incredibly tall order if you are incapable of enjoying heterosexual activity.

If you believe in something strongly enough you can convince yourself that any position is correct. After all I doubt I would change my mind on the issue no matter how much I delved into the Churches position on sexual orientation and equally those who hold Homosexuality to be disordered.

In my view the church has no right to dictate how and for what purpose people should engage in sexual activity as long as it takes place between two rational and consenting adults. The primacy of sex should be love and not procreation – which has until relatively recently not been the Churches position (it changed its stance during Vatican II saying love was of the utmost importance and offspring are the fruit of that love).

Again John Habgood sums the argument up beautifully; “Perhaps the most important lesson to be learnt… is centred on the need to get the balance right between the hedonistic pleasures of sex, and the deepening and maturing of human relationships.” I ask anyone to show me the harm being caused if two adults of either sex choose to begin and nurture a loving relationship based on mutual respect and affection. Whether the partners love or try to love each other is more important than whether they are of the same or different sex.

[1] Ratzinger, 1986. Sec. 3. ‘Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons.’
[2] Ratzinger 1986. sec. 5.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ratzinger 1986, sec. 6.