Two confusions about homosexuality

One of the most common confusions about homosexuality among Catholics today is the assumption that Church teaching condemns homosexual acts but finds nothing wrong with homosexual inclinations. This confusion has led many Catholics, even priests and bishops, to suggest that, as long as one does not act upon it, a homosexual disposition is perfectly acceptable, even a "gift" from God. But this is sadly misleading. It is true that a person is not culpable for a sinful inclination to which he does not consent. For example, there is nothing wrong with a man feeling sexual attraction for a woman provided he does not act on it outside of marriage. But this is not to say that the Church finds nothing wrong with homosexual inclinations, even if a person is innocent of acting upon them. The problem is that not all inclinations are natural and right. Some clearly are. God created men to be attracted by women, and vice versa; and configured their anatomical parts for one another in an obviously natural way. But not all inclinations and dispositions are natural and right. The inclination to autoerotic self-arousal, for example, is a perversion of nature. So also with homosexual inclinations. It is not merely that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered," as the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches (CCC 2357); rather, it is that the homosexual inclination iteself is "objectively disordered" (CCC 2358, emphasis added). If a man feels attracted to a woman, this is natural. It's how he was meant to respond. If he feels attracted sexually by another man, this is contrary to nature and a profound burden and constitutes for most homosexuals "a trial" (CCC 2358). There is nothing cruel or harsh about this observation. The Catechism says that such individuals must be "accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity" (Ibid.), yet also insists that they, like all of us, are called to "chastity," self-mastery," and "inner freedom" (CCC 2359).

A second confusion concerns the relation of the positions of the Bible and the Church on homosexuality to other moral and social questions such as slavery, usury, polygamy, etc. The assumption here, often promoted by revisionists under the guise of "doctrinal development," is that the position of the Bible and the Church on various moral and social issues has never been immutable or absolute, but has changed over time. For example, polygamy was permitted in the Old Testament, but has been forbidden since apostolic times; slavery was permitted in the Old Testament, but not condemned by the Church until modern times; usury was forbidden by the Church in the Middle Ages, but has been permitted in modern times. It is in light of this growing evolution and maturation of the mind of the Church on such matters that our understanding of the permissibility of homosexuality today must be assessed.

Let us examine this hypothesis by taking the example of slavery. There are several reasons why slavery is not a good analogy for the homosexuality debate.¹

First, there is no Scriptural mandate for slavery, that is, no commandment to enslave others, nor is there is a penalty for releasing slaves. Rather, the Old Testament merely tolerates a kind of slavery as a given social institution and regulates it without approving it. What kind of slavery was actually being regulated? The enslaving of prisoners of war, of criminals, of people who sold themselves into slavery as a last-ditch way to avoid starvation², or to advance their careers was permitted and regulated. As to regulating it, Robert J. Hutchinson writes, “while in the Code of Hammurabi anyone who harbors a runaway slave is to be put to death, the Old Testament law actually commands that such slaves be given refuge: “You shall not turn over a slave [who has escaped] to his master. He shall dwell with you in your midst . . . you must not ill-treat him” (Dt 23: 16-17). Not only that, but anyone who abducts someone and sells him or her into slavery—as the brothers of Joseph did in Genesis or the slave traders of the eighteenth century did—was to be put to death” (Ex 21: 16). “What’s more,” adds Hutchinson, “when a Hebrew ‘slave’ was freed, the Bible says, ‘you shall not send him away empty-handed, but shall weigh him down with gifts from your flock and threshing floor and wine press, in proportion to the blessings the Lord, your God, has bestowed upon you. For remember that you too were once slaves in the land of Egypt, and the Lord, your God, ransomed you” (Dt 15:13-15).³

By contrast, there is a Scriptural mandate, in the Old and New Testament, to limit sexual unions to heterosexual ones. In addition there is a severe penalty having to do with a person’s eternal standing before God or entrance into his Kingdom. “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Stop deceiving yourselves: Neither sexually immoral persons [pornoi, i.e., like the incestuous man], nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor ‘soft men’ [malakoi, i.e., men who feminize themselves to attract male sex partners], nor men who lie with a male [arsenokoitai, a term formed from the Levitical prohibition of male homosexual practice] . . . shall inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9-10).

Second, slavery is not divinely instituted, a structure or mandate of creation, in short, a God-ordained social arrangement. By contrast, the institutions of civil authority, marital and parental relations are divinely instituted, creation structures. The latter are God-ordained, roles are divinely specified, and conduct is regulated. In particular, the biblical authors throughout the Scripture viewed heterosexual unions as normative structures of creation that are transculturally valid.

Third, there is tension within the biblical canon itself on the issue of slavery, which is evident from the trajectory within the Bible itself that critiques slavery. As Gagnon summarizes this point, “We can discern a trajectory within the Bible that critiques slavery. Central in Israelite memory was the remembrance of God’s liberation from slavery in Egypt (e.g. Exod 22:21; 23:9; Lev 25:42, 55; Deut 15:15).[⁴] Christian memory adds the paradigmatic event of Christ’s redemption of believers from slavery to sin and people (e.g., 1 Cor 6: 20; 7: 23). Israelite law put various restrictions on enslaving fellow Israelites—even insisting that Israelites not be treated as slaves—while Paul regarded liberation from slavery as a penultimate good (1 Cor 7: 21-23; Phlm 16).” By contrast, adds Gagnon, “While Scripture shows unease with the institution of slavery, the only discomfort it shows toward same-sex intercourse is with the commission of the act, not with its proscription.”⁵

Fourth, the Scripture is a countercultural witness regarding slavery, rather than a willing supporter. Its position is liberal and liberating by contrast to the ancient cultural norm. “The Bible’s stance on same-sex intercourse moved in the opposite direction, against any accommodation. Simply put, Scripture nowhere expresses a vested interest in preserving slavery, whereas Scripture does express a vested interest in requiring a male-female dynamic in sexual relationships.”⁶ In sum, “Scripture itself does not provide the kind of clear and unequivocal witness for slavery that it exhibits against same-sex intercourse.”⁷

Notes

1. Here I follow a terse summary of Robert A. J. Gagnon’s argument in The Bible and Homosexual Practice: texts and Hermeneutics from an unpublished manuscript by a colleague. On the question whether slavery is a good parallel for the homosexuality debate, see Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, pp. 443-448. See also, Dan O. Via & Robert A. J. Gagnon, Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003). Gagnon develops his argument against several analogies in this more recent book: Gentile inclusion, slavery, women in ministry, divorce and remarriage (pp. 42-47). See also, Thomas E. Schmidt, Straight & Narrow: Compassion & Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1995); and Christian Anthropology and Homosexuality, Edited by Mario Agnes, L’Osservatore Romano Reprints, Vatican City, 1997). [back]



2. On this, see Lev. 25: 39, “If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers. Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.” [back]



3. All the quotes in this paragraph are from Robert J. Hutchinson, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Bible (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2007), pp. 162-164. See also, Benedict M. Ashley, OP, Living the Truth in Love (New York: Alba House, 1996), pp. 290-293. [back]



4. Hutchinson, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Bible, “[T]he overarching theme that runs throughout the Hebrew Bible—from the Torah through the Deuteronomic History and the prophets—concerns how God ransomed the children of Israel from slavery in Egypt. Over and over again, the Hebrew Bible insists that Israelites must not mistreat their avadim (servants/slaves) because ‘you were once slaves [avadim] in the land of Egypt’” (p. 165). [back]



5. The apt phrase (“trajectory of critique”) is borrowed from Gagnon, Homosexuality and the Bible, p. 45. [back]



6. Gagnon, Homosexuality and the Bible, p. 45. [back]



7. Robert A.J. Gagnon, “The Authority of Scripture in the ‘Homosex’ Debate,” an expanded version of a presentation made to the Southeastern ELCA synod (http://www.robgagnon.net/). [back]

[Hat tip to E.E.]