Church Teaching on Homosexuality Has “Shaky Foundations,” Says Leading Catholic Journal
“It is problematic – if not contradictory – to stand up for the dignity of a gay person of either sex while deploring what it is about them that defines them as gay, namely their desire for intimate personal relationships with others of the same sex. This is part of their identity, and it is a relational identity. Is the imperative to find love – however defined or expressed – a crucial aspect of human dignity that also deserves respect? Given how important warmth and intimacy are known to be to a person’s emotional and mental health, it would seem so. “
Those sentences from an editorial in The Tablet, a leading international Catholic journal published in London, summarize well the entire argument the editors present to make the case against current Catholic doctine about homosexuality: “A Church Teaching With Shaky Foundations.” (Although there is a link to the original editorial, the full text is behind a pay wall, however it does allow for reading this single article for free by registering with the website). The editorial was sparked not only by Pope Francis’s recent statement opposing laws which criminalize lesbian and gay people, but also recent remarks by Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich of Luxembourg, who is also the Relator General for the Synod on Synodality and President of the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Union. In a 2022 interview, Hollerich said of church teaching on homosexuality: “The sociological-scientific foundation of this teaching is no longer correct.”
The editorial quotes the Catechism’s section 2357 which says:
“Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered’. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”
What is the opinion of The Tablet’s editors of this teaching: “This is problematic in every sentence.” The editorial states what many scripture scholars have been pointing out for decades now, but which many church leaders have continued to ignore:
“They [scripture passages] do not address what is now understood to be an inborn and lifelong orientation, an erotic attraction towards persons of the same sex, and, equally significantly, away from persons of the opposite sex. Homosexual acts are usually seen in Scripture as perverse wilful choices, often involving the exploitation of young men by other men with money and power. Homosexuality manifested in stable loving relationships between equals, as modern societies generally encounter it, is not what the Bible texts are addressing.The very term ‘homosexuality’, as a permanent disposition, is a relatively modern concept.”
The editors point out that when Catholic teaching uses “harsh” words like “objective disorder,” a common response from gay people has been to leave the church, or even worse:
“[In response ot “objective disorder”], [i]t is no wonder that gay Catholics often report struggling with an existential kind of rejection, even self-hatred, which is not only cruel but very damaging both to the body and the soul. Many eventually defend themselves by rejecting not their sexual identity but the Church itself. Some, we know, unable to reconcile their love for the Church with what it teaches about homosexual desire, have even been led to take their own life.”
The writers also challenge the Catechism’s assertion that same-sex activity cannot proceed from love:
“[T]he Catechism’s assertion that homosexual relations ‘do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity’ is contradicted by the evidence. Moral teaching based on outdated stereotypes is flawed.
“[England’s] Cardinal [Basil] Hume’s great contribution was to recognise that many gay relationships are stable, deep and loving, and he went on to declare that ‘love between two persons, whether of the same sex or of a different sex, is to be treasured and respected’. To love another person, he went on, ‘is to have entered the area of the richest human experience, whether that love is between persons of the same sex or of a different sex’.
Hume was a predecessor of a number of more contemporary church leaders who have praised the goodness of same-gender couples and relationships. (To view more excerpts from Cardinal Hume’s statement on homosexuality, click here. For a text of the full version, click here.)
Hume, however, upheld the hierarchy’s traditional disapproval of any sexual acts that did not have procreative potential, the editorial points. Yet, Cardinal Hollerich goes further than Hume did:
“[Hollerich] claims that the Catholic traditional teaching against contraception and homosexuality regarded any wasting of the male seed as parallel to abortion. Until the biology of reproduction was understood, it was assumed that the seed contained a potential human embryo which needed to be planted in a woman’s womb, and therefore must not be discarded – as it would be in a sex act between men, or a sex act using contraceptives between men and women.
“It is notable that these traditional arguments against homosexuality and contraceptives have no relevance to sex between women, yet Catholic lesbians are covered by the same condemnatory language as gay men. This may be because Catholic sexual morality is male-orientated, and in its ignorance of female sexuality it overlooks the sexual experience of half the human race.”
[Bondings 2.0 Editor’s note: Although Hollerich did in fact make these statements, several months later, he appeared to retract the strength of his call for doctrinal change. While it is disappointing that he did so, the retraction occurred in the context of a press conference on the synod, and his comments seemed to suggest he was being “insistent that the church be truly listening to one another in this synodal process, and then grow from the insights gained,” according to Robert Shine, Bondings 2.0’s managing editor. To view the video of Hollerich’s press conference comment, click here.]
The editorial closes by questioning, who, exactly, is harmed by loving same-gender relationships, and whether and why God, who Pope Francis has said created gay people, would truly be offended by them:
“It took the Church a long time to notice that the sexual abuse of children often left its victims damaged for life; it has not yet absorbed the fact that homosexual acts between consenting adults are usually victimless. Against whom are they trespassing, therefore? Is God alone offended by homosexuality, when it is, as Pope Francis says, part of a God-given nature? Is the Church quite happy about all this? It seems it is beginning to doubt it, which may be the beginning of wisdom.”
Kudos to The Tablet editors for joining the growing chorus of church leaders calling for a change in church teaching on homosexuality. LGBTQ+ people and so many others have known for a long time that the teaching did not reflect spiritual reality lived by actual people. While I am not expecting change to happen soon, I am expecting (and praying) that more church leaders will have the insight and courage to point out the faulty basis for the disapproval of loving, sexual relationships of same-gender couples. The faithful have spoken and continue to speak that this teaching does not reflect their understanding of God’s relationship with the world. If more leaders don’t speak, our church will continue to lose people who recognize that, as Pope Francis has said about criminalization laws, this teaching against loving relationships is simply unjust.
—Francis DeBernardo, New Ways Ministry, February 3, 2023
Golly, that email contains so much to decipher and take in! 🙂 Yes, it does sound promising re: the LGBT community and their relationship with the Church; however, a lot of harm already has been done and could be near impossible to undo in the minds of clergy and laity. Let’s pray for a “turnabout” in thinking/indoctrination on the part of everyone! 🙂
Francis,
Thank you for drawing attention to the TABLET Editorial. It is sad that people leave their homes/families for not being accepted for who they are and the same goes for “Mother Church”. Thankfully, Isaiah 49:15 speaking for Yahweh, is echoed in Matthew 23:37and denied in centuries of church teaching and positions. It seems to me that Pope Francis is now taking up the chorus – God does not reject the creation/creatures declared “Good and Very Good!” The position of the editorial, for me, is an echo of Dag Hammarskjold’s MARKINGS: “Never for the sake of ‘peace and quiet’ deny your own experience or convictions.” Unfortunately, the church has been doing that “denying” for too long. “The truth will set you free.” I am also reminded of and happy to share this story which speaks to adult faith and not pablum for infants.
THINK FOR YOURSELF
This is a story my grandfather told me and one that I would like to pass on to my grandchildren. Grandfather Isaac said it was the beginning of how he learned to think for himself.
He lived, at the time of the story, in a thatched-roof house in a shtetl in Poland, with his parents and his aunt Fanny. They were poor, naturally, but they had food. For Isaac it was never enough. Growing rapidly from the time he was eleven years old, he was always hungry. During the week the food was very plain, but on Fridays his mother usually managed something extra. On this particular Friday she was preparing cholent (a bean stew) with a good piece of meat. The aroma filled the house, making him restless. He couldn’t concentrate on his studies, his chores. He was intoxicated by the cooking smells.
Walking around outside, tossing stones into a bucket, he heard his mother scream. He rushed into the house. His mother was ringing her hands, asking God to forgive her. Aunt Fanny looked stunned. She had been cooking rice and milk. Mother had accidentally taken the milk spoon to stir the cholent. Mixing dairy and meat is strictly forbidden according to the laws of kashrut.
Isaac was afraid his mother, a pious woman, would throw away the cholent. He begged her to sit and be patient. He would go to the rabbi and ask for his advice. Although not agile, he ran the two miles in record time and blurted out the story to the rebbetzin (the rabbi’s wife). She listened respectfully but said he would have to ask the rabbi, as this was too important for her to handle.
It seemed forever until the rabbi arrived, buttoning his trousers. Isaac retold the story. The rabbi asked him such questions as “In what direction was the spoon facing? What time of day did it happen?” Questions that my grandfather, even at his young age of eleven, decided were foolish and irrelevant. Impatient as he was, he answered to the best of his ability.
Finally, the rabbi asked him how old he was. When he said he was eleven, the rabbi said he was too young, not yet a man, to deal with a matter of such importance. “Go home and tell your mother or father to see me about this,” he told Isaac.
Isaac arrived home half-dead from exhaustion and anxiety. His mother asked him, “What did the rabbi say?”
He answered, “The rabbi said, ‘Throw away the spoon and eat the stew.’”
He had decided, at that young age, that some rules were impractical and useless and that in this matter he would rely on himself to decide what was appropriate.
Told by Matilde Friedman in BECAUSE GOD LOVES STORIES, edited by Steve Zeitlin (New York: Touchstone, 1997) p. 104
Thanks again,
Alexei
Tablet Essay on Church Teaching on Homosexuality
Although this essay focuses on problematic interpretation of scripture passages about homosexuality and why the catechism’s offensive statements are also problematic, the quote from the catechism, “They are contrary to the natural law.” demonstrates that this discussion has to include the intersectionality of scripture interpretation, the catechism’s statements on homosexuality, and natural law.
Jamie Manson at a New Ways Ministry Conference gave a simplified definition of natural law theology. She said (I paraphrase): According to natural law theory, every action has a predetermined outcome and anything that interferes with that outcome is contrary to natural law.
Michael G. Lawler and Todd A. Salzman in their book, The Sexual Person, spent two chapters on natural law dogma. First they present it in all of its iterations and then they show how natural law theory is at its best of questionable value and at its worst just plain bad dogma.
It is possible for a system of thought to be badly flawed in one or more areas, but remain at base promising and useful. “Natural law,” with its good intention to serve all humans and their societies, and its foundation in the uniquely thoughtful analyses of Aristotle, but in application eschewing a humble adherence to the findings of natural scientists, might be such a system.
I agree that the “natural law theology” on which the Church’s teachings on sexuality are based are gravely flawed; and worse, they lead to executive decisions that are gravely unjust. The principle that the “end” of sexuality is procreation, and therefore all lawful (not “objectively disordered”) sexual conduct must “have procreative potential,” does not accord well with what natural scientists have discovered regarding sexual reproduction (a better term than “procreation”), and sexual behaviors, in living organisms. Reproduction might be considered a good for genomes adapted for evolutionary competition. But individual organisms are not to be confused with their genomes, and their interests are not the same. The pleasure and the beauty that organisms discover in sexual activity of their preference are goods in themselves, quite independent of whether the activity has reproduction as intention or consequence. The sexual activity of moral agents might very well require some ethical instruction, but not based on the principle of “procreative potential.”
Meanwhile, it’s possible that other, less fraught aspects of natural law remain defensible and useful.
Thank you, Francis. Shaky foundations is right. I’m asking in what way are humans imaging God? Surely the image of God is in our freedom? We aren’t determined by our physicality, by our culture, or by laws. We take them all very seriously, but we are not determined by them. Our dignity is in that freedom. Onward.