| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| CHRISTIAN | MORALITY |
Homosexuality, Morality, and the Truth of Church Teaching
by Mark S. Latkovic, S.T.D.
I believe that the best place to begin a discussion of the Church’s teaching on homosexuality1 — or any moral issue for that matter — is with the kind of life Christians are called to live regardless of what their “sexual orientation”2 might be. We see in the Gospel narratives that Jesus Christ calls us to a life of “perfection.” The Church — basing herself on the message of her Lord — simply reminds us of this “call,” proclaiming that a holy life is possible for human persons and perfective of them.
The Church also reminds us that a holy life is no mere “idea” or “abstraction.” Rather, this life takes a precise “form” or “pattern” — the person of Jesus Christ. Thus, as Pope John Paul II states, a Christian life involves “. . . holding fast to the very person of Jesus, partaking of his life and destiny, sharing in his free and loving obedience to the will of the Father. . . ” (The Splendor of Truth, 1993, no. 19).3
Yet the one who would be a follower of Jesus is not simply a soul who happens to “have” a body. A human person is an embodied being whose identity is better understood as a “body-soul” unity.4 Hence, the effort at “conforming” ourselves to the Person of Jesus necessarily includes an aspect of our being that is constitutive of who we are — our sexuality. As the authors of the book Catholic Sexual Ethics argue: “. . . being male or female is not simply an accidental or unimportant aspect of a human person, nor is it simply cultural. The sexuality of men and women affects them not only in obvious physical ways but also psychically, intellectually, and spiritually. Sexual differences make possible the complementary and special friendship between men and women — relationships that in a host of ways are connected to the economy of salvation: man and woman he made them; in his image he made them.”5
These authors note that our natural sexual desires and responses to persons of the opposite sex “are in themselves good, for they are a part of our human nature created by God, and, when properly integrated into the personal vocation to which God calls every person, they play an irreducible role in the self-perfection which is each person’s contribution to the kingdom of Christ.”6
Thus, there is a salvific dimension to our sexuality and the exercise of it in specific genital acts. That is, our worthiness for the Kingdom of God is in part determined by how well we respect this wonderful gift of human sexuality—both in ourselves and in others. Truly, human sexuality is a great gift, but one which entails respect for the “sexual requirements” of the Kingdom.7
But what of the person with a sexual attraction to a member of his or her own sex? How are we to morally evaluate this “homosexual orientation” —whatever its primary cause(s) might be? What moral judgment do we make of the behavior of those who act out their desires in homosexual activity? And what should be the pastoral response of the Church?8
Homosexuality, “Sexual Orientation,” and the Teaching of the Church
First, it is necessary to offer a “definition” of homosexuality. Note, however, that I do not say a definition of the “homosexual person,” because the Church herself “refuses to consider the person as ‘heterosexual’ or ‘homosexual’ and insists that every person has a [more] fundamental identity: the creature of God and, by grace, his child and heir to eternal life” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, 1986, no. 16; hereafter Letter). Moreover, in order to avoid the implication that homosexuality is a “biological given,”9 that is, to avoid saying that some persons are “constitutionally” homosexual, many clinical psychologists no longer use the term “orientation,” but prefer to speak of persons who have a “same-sex attraction,” or a “same-sex-attraction disorder” (SSAD).10
Thus, while the word “orientation” implies that one’s sexuality is determined or fixed, the word “attraction” implies that change is possible (Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2358, Editio Typica [1997], where the term [homosexual] “condition” found in the 1994 edition was changed to read [homosexual] “inclination”).11 However, in this paper I will often retain the use of the terms “orientation” and “condition” — while also using other terms such as “inclination” and “attraction” — which, again, do not imply that homosexuality is some kind of fixed trait — simply because they are more familiar and they are the terms used by some of the authors I will rely on in my treatment of the subject. At the same time, my use of these terms should not be taken to imply that homosexuality is genetically “programmed” or that persons are unable to change from homosexuality to heterosexuality.
Basing themselves on the current literature, the moral theologians Ronald Lawler, Joseph Boyle, and William E. May describe a person with a same-sex orientation (either homosexual or lesbian) as one who “(1) is attracted physically and erotically by persons of his or her own sex; (2) usually has no similar attraction to the opposite sex; and (3) in many instances has a positive revulsion for sexual actions with a member of the opposite sex.”12 As is well known, and as the authors point out, the Church makes a distinction between the homosexual orientation and homosexual acts (Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics, 1975, no. 8). The Church’s moral judgment is concerned with the latter.
However, in recent years many within the Church (and society) had begun to characterize (and still do) the homosexual orientation as “neutral or even good” (Letter, #3). Thus, we have heard “gay rights” activists speak of “gay gifts,” “gay spirituality,” and even “gay marriage.”13 To correct this erroneous understanding, the Letter affirms that the homosexual condition, while not a sin, “is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder” (no. 3, my emphasis).
This statement by the Congregation was met with charges of hatred, bigotry, and “homophobia.” Dissenting groups such as Dignity saw in this statement a negative judgment pronounced on the (homosexual) person, not (just) on his or her behavior. Therefore, it is the person with this orientation who is “disordered,” so went the interpretation.14 However, this is sadly incorrect.
The moral theologian William E. May provides some good analogies to help us properly interpret the meaning of “objective disorder.” For example, “Just as concupisence, which results from original sin, although not itself a sin, is a strong tendency inclining and enticing human persons to sin, and just as the condition of alcoholism, while not itself a sin, nonetheless strongly disposes persons subject to it to abuse alcohol,” May writes, “so too does the homosexual inclination, while not sinful itself, strongly dispose those persons subject to it to abuse the gift of sexuality.”15 But, of course, this presupposes that one sees homosexual activity as objectively immoral.
Unfortunately, because of the overly benign interpretation of the homosexual orientation, many have argued, again contrary to the Church’s constant teaching, that homosexual acts are not gravely sinful (even though some might grant that the activity is not the “ideal” or that it involves various “disvalues”).16 For example, to cite but one argument, it is asserted that because persons with a homosexual orientation did not “freely”choose this orientation, they are not culpable for engaging in homosexual acts. The Church rejects this claim because it is based on the “unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behavior of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable” (Letter, no. 11). As May comments, “Here the Congregation in effect affirms the dignity and moral responsibility of homosexually oriented persons. They have the freedom to choose not to engage in homosexual acts because they realize that to do so is to determine themselves, by their own free choices, in such a way that they are possessed by their desires and not in possession of them.”17 Just as every heterosexually oriented person — whether single or married, lay or religious — is called by Christ to control his sexual desires, i.e., to develop the virtue of chastity, so too are called those persons with a homosexual orientation.
Homosexual Activity, the Natural Moral Law, and Biblical Revelation
Although, as we noted, the Church makes a distinction between the homosexual orientation and homosexual acts, this may not justify the error of those who would sever the deep unity that exists between the person and his or her acts. The Vatican Council II document, Gaudium et Spes (GS), will even state that choices regarding sexual activity must be guided by “objective criteria” which are “drawn from the nature of the human person and his acts” (no. 51).18 The point is this: although the homosexual orientation is not sinful, freely chosen homosexual acts are; and, precisely because of the close connection between the person and his acts, one who engages in this activity forms his moral character in a morally bad way. But why are homosexual acts bad?
Homosexual acts are morally bad, the Church teaches, because our God-given sexual powers are to be exercised only within the context of marriage19 — understood as a permanent union of one man and one woman open to the blessing of children.20 For it is only in marriage (even a “sterile” one)21 that sexual activity can respect the total meaning of the real goods of sexuality: “mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love” (GS, no. 51). Since homosexual activity is always morally wrong—because it can neither respect nor realize the interdependent goods of “mutual self-giving” and “procreation”22 — so-called “homosexual unions” or “same-sex marriage” can never be (morally) permissible. Thus, the “normative standard” for all genital sexual expression is openness to the goods of “love” and “life” in the bond of marriage.23
Moreover, as we have seen, this “natural law” teaching is in fact also grounded in the Church’s understanding of the general scriptural view of human sexuality.24 Even apart from the six explicit biblical references to male homosexual acts (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:9-10) and female homosexual acts (Romans 1:26) – each of which clearly condemns the activity25 — the Bible teaches that “the sexual differentiation of the human race into male and female is divinely willed, that male and female complement each other and that marriage, rooted in the irrevocable consent of man and woman to be ‘one flesh’ for life, alone respects the goods of human sexuality.”26
This is why, the Letter argues, “choose[ing] someone of the same sex for one’s sexual activity . . . annul[s] the rich symbolism and meaning [e.g., see Ephesians 5:21-33 where marriage is seen as an image of and participation in Christ’s love for his bride the Church], not to mention the goals, of the Creator’s sexual design [e.g., see Genesis 1:27-28, 2:18-25; Matthew 19:3-9; Mark 10:2-12]” (no. 7).
Since homosexual acts, by their very nature, will always fall
radically short of the normative moral standard, the Church can no more change its
teaching on this matter and accept “homosexual marriage” (as some are urging),27
than it could change its teaching on the nature of the dignity of the human person. This
would not be a development of moral doctrine, but a denial of it.
“Homosexual Rights,” Society, and the Church’s Pastoral Response
Far from being rooted in a deep seated animus against homosexually oriented persons, the Church’s moral teaching is a compassionate reminder that “homosexual activity prevents one’s own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God” (Letter, no. 7)28 — a wisdom which has ordered sex to heterosexual marriage and the family community.
In fact, the Church’s constant teaching really shows an intelligent and loving concern for persons who find themselves with a homosexual orientation. This is care that these persons deserve and that support groups such as Courage attempt to provide.29 Indeed, the Church recognizes that homosexually inclined persons “are called to friendship with God and to holiness of life . . . and they have distinctive heavy burdens to bear. If, as many homosexuals do, they carry their burdens with generous and chaste fidelity, they support and strengthen all Christians. They become witnesses to the nobility of making great personal sacrifice to guard the great human goods sexuality is ordered to.”30
With respect to various forms of “homosexual rights” legislation, the Church and society must respect the basic rights of all persons. Yet we must also balance, on the one hand, the fact that no “group has the right to demand that society count as innocent those forms of life that are intrinsically immoral,” with, on the other, the understanding that “the difference in personality structure innocently incurred by some [and there is vigorous debate over whether this orientation can be changed]31 may not be treated as excuses for despising or treating unfairly brothers and sisters in Christ.”32
Thus, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church declares, while all forms of “unjust discrimination”33 against persons with a homosexual inclination “should be avoided” (no. 2358), the institution of heterosexual marriage “should be considered the normative reference point by which the different forms of family relationship are to be evaluated” (no. 2202).34
Conclusion
Let us pray to Jesus and His Mother that we may grow in the freedom that comes from doing the will of the Father. By joining any sexual struggles — whether homosexual or heterosexual — to the Cross of Christ, we hope to enjoy the graced peace that comes from our ever faithful God. With Christ’s help and the support of His Mystical Body the Church, a chaste Christian life is possible. It is this kind of life that respects the sacred dignity of the human person and manifests his heavenly calling.35
Dr. Mark S. Latkovic is Assistant Professor of Moral and Systematic Theology at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, Michigan.
1 Cf. Lawler, Boyle, and May, Catholic Sexual Ethics, pp. 186-193 on why — from the perspective of reason, scripture, and the magisterium — homosexual activity is intrinsically immoral. These authors also dialectically engage and respond to various objections against the Church’s teaching. See also Grisez, The Way of the Lord Jesus, Vol. 2, pp. 653-654, who develops an argument against homosexual “sodomy” based on the damage it does to the basic human good of “self-integration.”
2 For the problems associated with this ambiguous phrase, see John Finnis, “Law, Morality, and ‘Sexual Orientation,’” Notre Dame Law Review 69 (1994): 1049-1076, at pp. 1053-1055. See also Jeffrey Keefe, O.F.M. Conv., “Key Aspects of Homosexuality,” in John F. Harvey, O.S.F.S., The Truth About Homosexuality: The Cry of the Faithful (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1996), pp. 31-67 and the reference in endnotes 8 and 10 below on the origins of the “homosexual orientation.”
3 References to magisterial documents, for the most part, will be in the body of the paper except for an occasional citation.
4 As the Council Fathers at Vatican II teach, “Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity” (Gaudium et Spes), #14.
5 Ronald Lawler, O.F.M. Cap., Joseph Boyle Jr., and William E. May, Catholic Sexual Ethics: A Summary, Explanation, and Defense, second edition (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 1998), p. 123, emphasis added. See also Pope John Paul II, The Theology of the Body: Human Love in the Divine Plan (Boston: Pauline Books and Media, 1997), especially Part 1 on the “Original Unity of Man and Woman,” pp. 25-102, and Familiaris Consortio, no. 11 on the nature and role of the body and sex in the divine economy.
6 Ibid., p. 124, emphasis added.
7 Cf. ibid., chapter 2 (“The Biblical Teaching on Sex,” pp. 32-45), and especially endnote 56 on p. 265 where the authors refer to recent studies by Silverio Zedda (Relativo e assoluto nella morale di San Paolo) and Larry O. Yarbrough (Not Like the Gentiles) which show how sexual immorality violates the fundamental norm of “life in Christ.”
8 For an interesting, if not always morally sound, exchange between Catholic and Protestant theologians on these questions, see the discussion “Homosexuality, Marriage and the Church: A Conversation,” in The Christian Century, July 1-8, 1998, pp. 644-650.
9 The clinical psychologist Gerard J.M. Van Den Aardweg writes: “Up to this date, there is not a shred of solid evidence of an inborn factor, nor even of an inherited disposition” (Van Den Aardweg, “Dubious Psychology,” Catholic World Report, November, 1997, pp. 36-42, at p. 39).
10 Cf. Mike Aguilina, “Daring to Speak Its Name,” Our Sunday Visitor, November 22, 1998, pp. 14-15. See also Richard Fitzgibbons, “The Origins and Therapy of Same-Sex Attraction Disorder,” in Christopher Wolfe (ed.), Homosexuality and American Public Life (Dallas: Spence Pub. Co., 1999), pp. 85-97.
11 Cf. Gerard J.M. Van Den Aardweg, “Dubious Psychology,” Catholic World Report. In the course of criticizing two articles by Professor G. Zuanazzi that appeared in L’ Osservatore Romano, which maintained that (the cause of) “homosexuality is still an enigma,” Van Den Aardweg responds by arguing that “[Zuanazzi] fails to mention that there is now a growing consensus that homosexuality is: 1) chiefly (if not wholly) a psychological disturbance; 2) an arrest of psychological development; 3) the result of disturbance in gender identity or deficient identification with masculinity/femininity; and 4) catalyzed by certain more or less specific parental attitudes, especially problems in the relationship with the same-sex parent as well as same sex peer relationship problems” (p. 36).
Later in his article, Van Den Aardweg goes on to criticize the 1994 edition of the Catechism for accepting much of the “cultural framework” with respect to homosexuality — a framework which “leans heavily toward the notion that the condition is normal and unchangeable, favors a genetic theory, and moralizes monotonously that the homosexual should be viewed as the victim of discrimination. Too many of these prejudices spill over into the text of the Catechism” (p. 41).
12 Lawler, Boyle, and May, Catholic Sexual Ethics, p. 186. See also Harvey, The Homosexual Person, pp. 71-74 on the different “kinds” of “homosexualities.”
13 Cf. Richard Cleaver, Know My Name: A Gay Liberation Theology (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1995). See further the “Society of Catholic Social Scientists Letter to the U.S. Bishops on Recent Trends in Ministry to Homosexual Catholics,” in Paul C. Vitz and Stephen M. Krason (eds.), Defending the Family: A Sourcebook (Steubenville, OH: The Catholic Social Science Press, 1998), pp. 102-103.
14 John F. Harvey, O.S.F.S. discusses this erroneous interpretation in The Truth About Homosexuality, pp. 153-158.
15 May, in Lawler, Boyle, and May, Catholic Sexual Ethics, p. 202. Cf. the excellent article by the Italian moral theologian Livio Melina, “Homosexual Inclination as an ‘Objective Disorder’: Reflections of Theological Anthropology,” Communio 25 (Spring 1998): 57-68 (“Such [homosexual] inclinations are tendencies wherein the elements of the personality are disposed in such a way that they do not orient the subject towards the attainment of the end that God’s plan assigns to sexuality,” p. 61).
16 For a good summary of such dissenting Catholic theological voices as Charles E. Curran, Philip Keane, John J. McNeill, and Gregory Baum, see John F. Harvey, O.S.F.S., The Homosexual Person: New Thinking in Pastoral Care (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987), pp. 79-93; and Vincent J. Genovesi, In Pursuit of Love: Catholic Morality and Human Sexuality, second edition (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996), pp. 289-298 for another summary of the “revisionist” position (including the views of Richard McCormick, S.J. and Lisa Sowle Cahill) by someone sympathetic to it.
17 May, in Lawler, Boyle, and May, Catholic Sexual Ethics, p. 205.
18 For a brief, but excellent commentary on this text, see Ramon Garcia de Haro, Marriage and the Family in the Documents of the Magisterium: A Course in the Theology of Marriage, second edition (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1993, trans. William E. May), pp. 260-262.
19 Cf. Lawler, Boyle, and May, Catholic Sexual Ethics, p. 187; see also ibid., chapter 1 for a summary of the magisterium’s teaching on marriage; Germain Grisez, The Way of the Lord Jesus, Vol. 2: Living a Christian Life (Quincy, IL: Franciscan Press, 1993); and Robert P. George (and Patrick Lee), “What Sex Can Be: Self-Alienation, Illusion or One-Flesh Union,” in George, In Defense of Natural Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), pp. 160-183 (This essay originally appeared in the forum on “same-sex marriage” in the American Journal of Jurisprudence 42 [1997], pp. 135-157; see endnote 26 below).
20 Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2201-2203; Grisez, The Way of the Lord Jesus, Vol. 2: Living a Christian Life, pp. 555-584.
21 Cf. Robert P. George (and Gerard V. Bradley), “Marriage and the Liberal Imagination,” in George, In Defense of Natural Law, pp. 139-160.
22 Cf. Lawler, Boyle, and May, Catholic Sexual Ethics, pp. 186-193 on why — from the perspective of reason, scripture, and the magisterium — homosexual activity is intrinsically immoral. These authors also dialectically engage and respond to various objections against the Church’s teaching. See also Grisez, The Way of the Lord Jesus, Vol. 2, pp. 653-654, who develops an argument against homosexual “sodomy” based on the damage it does to the basic human good of “self-integration.”
23 Cf. Livio Melina, “Moral Criteria for Evaluating Homosexuality,” L’Osservatore Romano, June 11, 1997, pp. 7-8.
24 Cf. Harvey, The Homosexual Person, pp. 95-117 which marshals arguments from reason and revelation. See also Enzo Cortese, “Homosexuality in the Old Testament,” L’Osservatore Romano, March 26, 1997, pp. 10-11 and Romano Penna, “Homosexuality in the New Testament,” ibid., April 2, 1997, pp. 6-7.
25 Sound scripture scholarship confirms this view. See, for example, Joseph Jensen, O.S.B., “Human Sexuality in the Scriptures,” in Human Sexuality and Personhood (St. Louis: Pope John Center, 1981), pp. 15-35, and the articles from L’ Osservatore Romano cited in endnote 23 above.
26 Lawler, Boyle, and May, Catholic Sexual Ethics, p. 187.
27 Cf. Andrew Sullivan, Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality (N.Y.: Alfred A. Knopf, 1995). Sullivan is a “gay” Roman Catholic writer and former editor of the New Republic. For an effective response to Sullivan’s argument that homosexuality is “natural,” and, therefore, “moral,” see Robert P. George, “Nature, Morality and Homosexuality,” in George, In Defense of Natural Law, pp. 276-286. See also the exchange between Andrew Koppelman (“Is Marriage Inherently Heterosexual?” pp. 51-95) and John Finnis (“The Good of Marriage and the Morality of Sexual Relations: Some Philosophical and Historical Observations,” pp. 97-134) in the forum titled “Sexual Morality and the Possibility of ‘Same-Sex Marriage’,” American Journal of Jurisprudence 42 (1997).
28 Cf. Samuel McCracken, “Are Homosexuals Gay?” Commentary (January 1979): 19-29, at pp. 20-21 for the statistics on the higher rates of suicides among homosexuals than among others.
29 Cf. Harvey, The Truth About Homosexuality, pp. 19-30 and The Homosexual Person, pp. 119-174. These pages discuss in detail the history, goals, and approach of Courage and other like-minded groups that provide sound pastoral care to persons struggling with homosexual tendencies.
30 Lawler, Boyle, and May, Catholic Sexual Ethics, p. 192.
31 Cf. Harvey, The Truth About Homosexuality, chapter 4 (“The Possibility of Change,” pp. 69-114). Harvey is now more optimistic than he had been about the possibility of changing one’s homosexual orientation. However, in The Homosexual Person (pp. 76 and 105), he had readily admitted that this is possible. And Van Den Aardweg notes that therapeutic experts (like himself) who have a long history of counseling homosexuals, e.g., those therapists, such as Joseph Nicolosi, associated with the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, “are not so pessimistic” about the possibility of changing sexual orientation (“Dubious Psychology,” Catholic World Report, p. 40).
32 Lawler, Boyle, and May, Catholic Sexual Ethics, p. 193; see also Letter, #9-10 and Harvey, The Truth About Homosexuality, pp. 219-232.
33 Cf. Van Den Aardweg’s caution about the use and abuse of this phrase (“Dubious Psychology,” Catholic World Report, p. 42).
34 Cf. “Pope: Homosexual Marriage Has Capacity to Destroy Society,” National Catholic Register, June 13 - June 19, 1999, p. 6 and Piero Schlesinger, “Do Homosexual Couples Have a Right to Marriage?” L’ Osservatore Romano, May 28, 1997, p. 10.
35 The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a “notification” on May 31, but published on July 13, 1999, that the founders of New Ways Ministry — a pastoral ministry to homosexuals — School Sister of Notre Dame Jeannine Gramick and Salvatorian Fr. Robert Nugent are “permanently prohibited from any pastoral work involving homosexual persons.” The notification stated that they “have continually called central elements” of the Church’s teaching on homosexuality into question. According to the notification of the CDF, their positions “regarding the intrinsic evil of homosexual acts and the objective disorder of the homosexual inclination are doctrinally unacceptable because they do not faithfully convey the clear and constant teaching of the Church in this area” (“Notification Concerning Sister Jeannine Gramick and Father Robert Nugent,” in National Catholic Register, July 25-July 31, 1999, p. 9).