 |
 |
 |
|
|
|---|
|
From The Church and the Homosexual
by John
J. McNeill, SJ. pp. 37-66.
Published by Darton, Longman & Todd,
1977.
The Use of Scripture
There
are two methodological questions in moral theology which are important for a
discussion of the morality of homosexuality. The first of these has to do with
the use and place of Scripture in moral theology, and the second with the use
and place of the human sciences. Since a Christian ethics as such reflects on
human reality within the context of Christian revelation, it is obvious that
scriptural sources have a role to play: “Biblical ethics contributes data
to Christian ethics, but it remains only one aspect, albeit a privileged
aspect, of the total data of ethical theology,” Father Curran notes. There
are, however, two limitations to the use of biblical data. First, the
Scriptures are “historically and culturally limited,” so that one
cannot merely transpose a text of Scripture to the contemporary circumstances
of life. Secondly, no thesis would be acceptable which would develop its
argument only in terms of individual texts taken out of their context.
When
Curran makes use of scriptural data concerning homosexuality, however, he does
not seem to apply adequately the criteria he himself set down for a legitimate
use of such data. Referring to those passages in the Old and New Testaments
which have been traditionally translated as dealing with homosexuality, he
acknowledges that “possibly erroneous interpretations seem to have
overemphasized the heinousness of homosexual acts.” He accepts D. Sherwin
Bailey’s account of the Sodom story of Genesis 19:4-11, granting that the
sin of the Sodomites “does not necessarily involve a sexual connotation
but could be interpreted as a violation of hospitality.”’, This is a
very important concession, since the centuriesold tradition in the Christian
world of extreme condemnation of homosexuality always had its primary basis in
the interpretation of this text of Genesis as indicating an extreme divine
judgment of condemnation on homosexual behavior. He continues to accept,
however, what he believes to be a general condemnation of homosexuality in the
Old Testament. His primary evidence for this is the references to homosexuality
in the Holiness Code (Lev. 18:22; 20:13 ), where it is referred to as a major
crime punishable by death.
Indicating three direct references to homosexuality in the New Testament, all
in the epistles of St. Paul (1 Cor. 6:9-10; 1 Tim. 1:9-10; Rom. 1:26-27),
Curran concludes: “Paul obviously regards homosexual acts as wrong and a
perversion of human existence willed by God.” He acknowledges, however,
Thielicke’s contention that Paul’s consideration of homo-, sexuality
appears “only in the context of a more central theological affirmation
that disorder in the vertical dimension of man’s relation with God is
matched by disorder in the horizontal dimension.” Consequently, Paul never
considers homo-, sexuality in itself, but “only as illustrative of the
central theological point that man’s relationship with God affects all his
other relationships. ”
Curran concludes from this brief consideration of biblical data that it
“indicates that the biblical authors in their cultural and historical
circumstances deemed homosexual acts wrong and attached a generic gravity to
such acts, but there appears to be no reason for attaching a special
heinousness or gravity to these acts." In all these considerations, however, he
omits a central question. Can one merely accept what is referred to in English
translations of the Bible as homosexuality as representing in the mind of the
biblical authors what we refer to today by the same term?
We
would do well to recall here the words of the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine
Revelation of the Second Vatican Council dealing with the interpretation of
sacred Scripture:
Since God speaks in sacred Scripture through men in a human fashion, the
interpreter of sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to
communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers
really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words. (No.
12)
This
cautious investigation of the intention of the human author is especially
called for in dealing with biblical passages which traditionally have been
accepted as dealing with homosexual activity.
The Need for a Definition o f Homosexuality
Unfortunately, Curran never attempts to define exactly what he means by the
term homosexual. As a result he feels free to assume that what is usually
translated in the biblical texts by the same term as that used today actually
refers to the same condition. It can, however, be argued (1) that what is
referred to, especially in the New Testament, under the rubric of homosexuality
is not the same reality at all or (2) that the biblical authors do not manifest
the same understanding of that reality as we have today. Further, it can be
seriously questioned whether what is understood today as the true homosexual
and his or her activity is ever the object of explicit moral condemnation in
Scripture.
The
prefix “homo” in the word homosexual is derived from the Greek root
meaning “same,” and not from the Latin word for “man.”
Consequently, it designates anyone who is sexually attracted to someone of the
same sex and includes both male and female homosexuals, or lesbians. Most human
beings are capable of either homosexual or heterosexual activity, independent
of the question of their own psychological sexual orientation. Many homosexuals
marry and have children, frequently in an effort to conceal their sexual
orientation. On the other hand, there is no necessary connection between overt
homosexual behavior and the permanent psychological condition of homosexuality.
Many people have had homosexual experiences who do not have a predominantly
homosexual orientation but are definitely heterosexually inclined.
Consequently, it is important for the moralist to keep the distinction between
homosexual activity and the homosexual condition clearly in mind. For there is
an important difference in the moral judgment to be passed on a heterosexual
indulging in homosexual activity and a true homosexual indulging in the same
behavior as an expression of his or her love.
Kinsey limited himself exclusively to objective behavior in the scientific
study he made of sexual mores in the United States, leaving aside the
subjective question of the sexual orientation of his respondents. According to
Kinsey, as much as thirty-seven percent of the male population had some overt
homosexual experience .29 In the majority of cases, however, these experiences
seemed to involve little more than transitory experimentation which did not
inhibit a later satisfactory heterosexual adjustment. There are many other
forms of contingent homosexual practice which can be called situational and
which do not indicate a true homosexual psychological condition. When, for
example, men are isolated together for long periods of time and separated from
the companionship of women-as in prisons or at sea-many will adopt homosexual
behavior; but most of them normally discard their homosexual behavior and
resume a heterosexual orientation once withdrawn from their segregated
situation. Still other forms of conditional homosexual behavior, which do not
necessarily indicate a homosexual condition, can be called variational, e.g.
heterosexuals who occasionally take part in homosexual activity out of
curiosity or as an easy means of sexual indulgence. Still one other form of
conditional homosexual behavior should be mentioned; this category involves
people who, although they are fundamentally heterosexually inclined, adopt
homosexual behavior consequent upon some traumatic event or psychic disorder.
If they are cured of their trauma or disorder, they will revert to their
original heterosexual inclination.
Although all of the above groups have had some homosexual experience, none of
them are what could be called “true” homosexuals. Today we use the
word homosexual primarily to refer to the psychic condition of the individual,
and not just to occasional behavior. Bailey defines homosexuality as “a
condition characterized by an emotional and physicosexual propensity toward
others of the same sex.” D. W. Cory defines the homosexual as “any
person who feels a most urgent sexual desire which in the main is directed
toward gratification with the same sex. ” The Dutch Cathechism uses the
term to refer to those “whose eroticism cannot be directed to the other
sex, but apparently only to the same sex to which they themselves belong.”
As John Cavanaugh remarks, “It is important to accept the concept that
homosexuality is a way of thinking and feeling, not merely a way of acting. The
performance of homosexual acts is, therefore, not in itself evidence of
homosexuality.” Christopher Isherwood indicates the subjective norm for
knowing oneself to be a homosexual when he writes: “You first know you
are a homosexual when you fall in love with another man.”
As
Bailey observes, strictly speaking neither the Bible nor Christian tradition
knew anything of homosexuality as such; both were concerned solely with the
commission of homosexual acts. Homosexuality is not, as commonly supposed, a
kind of conduct, but a psychological condition. It is important to understand
that the genuine homosexual condition-or inversion, as it is often termed-is
something for which the subject can in no way be held responsible. In itself it
is morally neutral. Like the condition of heterosexuality, however, it tends to
find expression in specific sexual acts; and such acts are subject to moral
judgment. We must distinguish, then, between the invert and the pervert. The
pervert is not a genuine homosexual; rather, he is a heterosexual who engages
in homosexual practices, or a homosexual who engages in heterosexual practices.
This distinction between the condition of inversion and the behavior of
perversion is indispensable for a correct interpretation of biblical and
traditional sources.
The
real moral problem of homosexuality has to do with judging the moral value of
sexual activity between genuine homosexuals who seek to express their love for
one another in a sexual gesture. Scripture can be understood as clearly and
explicitly condemning true homosexual activity only if it can be interpreted as
condemning the activity of a true invert. To such situations, however, it can
hardly be said that the Bible addresses itself, since the condition of
inversion with all its special problems was quite unknown at the, time. On the
contrary, there is ample evidence that in most instances where Scripture deals
with homosexuality the author probably had in mind what today we would call
perversion, namely, the indulgence in homosexual activity on the part of those
who were by nature heterosexually inclined.
The Sodom and Gomorrah Story in Genesis
Perhaps the single most important factor in the Western Christian tradition
condemning homosexual practices is the interpretation given to the Sodom and
Gomorrah story in Genesis 19:4-The Church taught, and people universally
believed on what they held to be excellent authority, that homosexual practices
had brought a terrible divine vengeance upon the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah,
and that the repetition of such “offences against nature” had from
time to time provoked similar visitations of divine wrath in the form of
earthquakes, floods, famines, outbreaks of pestilence, etc. It was taken for
granted, therefore, that by means of both Church discipline and the restraints
and penalties of civil law steps should be taken to ward off the wrath of God
from the community. It was also taken for granted that the sin for which the
cities of the plain were destroyed was that of the habitual indulgence of
perverse homosexual practices among men. Consequently, the question must be
posed: To what extent is this tradition truly founded in Scripture? What was
the meaning of the encounter of Lot and his angelic visitors with the angry
inhabitants of Sodom as recorded by the Yahwist author of Genesis 19? Finally,
what grounds, if any, are there for the persistent belief that the inhabitants
of the city were addicted to male homosexual practices and were punished
accordingly?
As D.
S. Bailey points out, the attribution of homosexual practices is based usually
on the demand the Sodomites are recorded to have made of Lot: “Bring them
[Lot’s visitors] out unto us, that we may know them.” The Hebrew word
“to know” yãdhá can mean “engage in
coitus.” However, Bailey argues this is not necessarily the meaning of the
word in this passage. The Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old Testament notes
that of the 943 uses of yãdhá it is used only 10 times
without qualification, apart from this text in Genesis and its derivative in
Judges 19:22, to denote sexual coitus. And, again with the possible exception
of this text, it always refers to heterosexual coitus. The word normally used
in the Old Testament for both homosexual coitus and bestiality is
shãkhabh. G. A. Barton concludes from this evidence that
“there is no actual necessity to interpret ‘know’ in Gen. xix, 5
as equivalent with ‘to have coitus with.’ It may mean no more than
‘get acquainted with.”
Bailey argues further that the passage can be interpreted as implying that Lot,
who was a ger or resident alien in Sodom, may have exceeded his rights
by receiving and entertaining two foreigners whose intentions might have been,
hostile and whose credentials, it seems, had not been examined. This
explanation provides a natural and sufficient reason for the demand:
“Where are the men who came to thee this night? Bring them out unto us,
that we may know them.”
What,
then, Bailey asks, was the nature of the sinfulness of Sodom and Gomorrah? We
are told in the passage itself in Genesis that these cities were wicked and
grievously sinful, but the writer does not specify the nature of this iniquity
more exactly. However, Bailey argues, only on a priori grounds can it be
assumed that it was an iniquity solely or even predominantly sexual in
character. There is no evidence elsewhere in the passage or in the Old
Testament to show that homosexual behavior was particularly prevalent in these
cities. Lot’s offer to surrender his daughters in place of the strangers
is sometimes interpreted as an offer of heterosexual in lieu of homosexual
satisfaction, in order to divert the lust of the Sodomites into less inordinate
channels. However, Bailey claims, this episode can be reasonably explained as
simply the most tempting bribe Lot could offer at the spur of the moment to
appease a hostile crowd.
Bailey believes that for an understanding of the development of the Sodom and
Gomorrah story it is important to place it in the context of the legends of a
similar character in the folklore of the surrounding cultures. Many of these
legends tell of a stranger (sometimes a divine being in disguise) who visits a
prosperous city and is refused hospitality. He eventually finds a lodging,
often with poor outcasts. Consequently, he helps his hosts escape before the
city and its inhabitants are destroyed. The most famous of these legends is
Ovid’s account of Philemon and Baucis.32 These legends may account for the
particular form the Sodom story itself assumed during its course of oral
transmission prior to being written down. In the legend, as in the same Yahwist
author’s Tower of Babel narrative in Genesis 11:9, the conduct which
brings judgment upon the offending community and leads to its destruction is
never sexual, but always wickedness in general, and in particular pride and
inhospitality.
There
are several other aspects to the narrative, besides those Bailey mentions,
which tend to indicate that in the mind of the Yahwist author of the narrative
the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was primarily one of inhospitality to strangers.
For example, when the angelic visitors come as strangers to Abraham’s
tent, the quality of Abraham as a good man is dramatically established by an
emphasis on his hospitable reception of the strangers.
Raising his eyes he saw three men standing near him. On seeing them, he ran
from the door of his tent to meet them, and bowing to the ground said; “Oh
sirs, if perchance I find favor with you, please do not pass by without
stopping with your servant. Let a little water be brought to wash your feet,
and stretch yourselves out under the tree, while I fetch a bit of food that you
may refresh yourselves. Afterwards you may proceed on your way, since you will
then have paid your servant a visit.” (Gen. 18:15) 33
Similarly the quality of Lot as a good man worthy of God’s favor is
established in contrast to the other inhabitants of Sodom by his hospitality to
the same strangers in terms strongly reminiscent of the story of the disciples
of Emmaus in the New Testament:
The
two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening while Lot was sitting at the gate of
Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to greet them, bowing his face to the ground,
and saying: “If you please, sirs, come over to your servant’s house
to pass the night and wash your feet; in the morning you may rise early, and go
on your way.” But they said: “No, we will pass the night in the
open.” He pressed them so strongly, however, that they went over to his
house, where he prepared a feast for them, and baked unleavened bread for them
to eat. (Gen. 19:1-3)
A
confirmation of the interpretation of the primary sin of Sodom and Gomorrah as
inhospitality occurs in the New Testament where Christ is recorded as
discussing the problem of the inhospitable reception of his disciples:
But
whenever you come to a town and they do not welcome you, go out into the open
streets and say: “The very dust of your town that sticks to our feet we
wipe off in protest. But understand this: The Kingdom of God is at handl”
I tell you, on that day Sodom will fare better than that townl (Lk. 10:10-13)
Throughout the Old Testament Sodom is referred to as a symbol of utter
destruction occasioned by sins of such magnitude as to merit exemplary
punishment." However, nowhere in the Old Testament is that sin identified
explicitly with homosexual behavior. In Ezekiel 16:49-50, for example, we read:
“Behold, this was the sin of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters
lived in pride, plenty, and thoughtless ease; they supported not the poor and
needy; they grew haughty, and committed abomination before me; so I swept them
away, as you have seen.” Isaiah stresses lack of justice, Jeremiah cites
moral and ethical laxity. The Deuterocanonical books usually identify the sin
as one of pride and inhospitality. Wisdom (19:1314 ), for example, clearly
identifies the sin as one of inhospitality: “. . . whereas the men of
Sodom received not the strangers when they came among them; the Egyptians made
slaves of the guests who were their benefactors.” Ecclesiasticus (16:8) in
turn identifies the sin as pride: “He did not spare the people among whom
Lot was living, whom he detested for their pride.” Only the late New
Testament books, 2 Peter and Jude, find the sin of Sodom connected in any way
with sexual practices; but these books, as we shall discuss later, seem to
understand the sin as a “transgression of orders” between human and
angelic beings.
A
further confirmation that in biblical times the sin of Sodom was not connected
with homosexual practices as such is to be found in the fact that none of the
biblical passages, either in the Old or New Testament, traditionally understood
as condemning these practices makes any mention of the Sodom story. Yet such a
reference would have been obvious if the sin of Sodom was understood as
involving these practices.
It
would seem fairly certain, then, that the sin of Sodom was understood in
biblical times as primarily one of inhospitality. However, Bailey may perhaps
have overstated his case in maintaining that there is no reference at all to
sexual mistreatment of the strangers as one aspect of the crime of
inhospitality. There is a hint of this in the fact that the same Hebrew word
yãdhá is used again by Lot in verse 7 when he offers his
daughters to the inhabitants, and here it clearly and unambiguously implies
sexual knowledge:
Please my friends, be not so depraved. I have two daughters who have never had
intercourse (yãdhá) with a man, let me bring them out to
you that you may do with them what you will; only do nothing to these men,
inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof. (Gen. 19:7-8)
It
remains possible, however, that the Yahwist author was deliberately playing on
the ambiguity of the term, using it in two different meanings.
Further, Bailey’s interpretation makes it difficult to understand how the
behavior of the inhabitants of Sodom confirmed the angels’ opinion that
they were wicked enough to deserve divine punishment, if they only wished to
examine their credentials. In the derivative account of the crime of Gibeah in
the Book of judges (19:1-21:25 ), the identical request is made of the old man,
who takes in the stranger for the night, by the inhabitants of Gibeah. In this
instance, however, the stranger releases his female .consort to the crowd, and
they so misuse her sexually that the stranger finds her dead on the threshold
in the morning. At a consequent gathering of the tribes of Israel, the stranger
makes clear what the crime of Gibeah was:
To
Gibeah, which belongs to the Benjamin, I came with my consort to spend the
night; but the citizens of Gibeah rose against me, and at night surrounded the
house against me. Me they intended to kill, and my consort they ravished, so
that she died. (Judg. 20: 4-s )
In
the book of judges’ derivative, then, the crime of inhospitality included
the design to murder the stranger. The obvious stress, once again, is not so
much on the implied sexual contact with the stranger as on the right of the
stranger to a hospitable reception. John McKenzie’s comment on the crime
of Gibeah is equally applicable to the Sodom story:
They [the authors] here betray two convictions . . . the absolute sacredness of
the guest and the absolute dignity of the male sex. The duty of the host to
protect the guest we can understand, but not to the point where the honor and
the life of the women of the family are regarded as expendable.35
As we
shall note later, the idea of “the absolute dignity of the male sex”
was one of the factors underlying the Jewish hostility to male homosexual
practices.
Peter
Ellis, in his book The Yahwist: The Bible’s First Theologian,
offers an interesting and suggestive thesis to explain the possible
presence of the sexual element in the Sodom narrative. He points out that one
of the Yahwist author’s principal themes was an attack against Canaanite
nature worship directed to the fertility Gods. Speaking of the episode in
Genesis concerning the “sons of God” lusting after the daughters of
men, he writes:
The
Yahwist’s audience would certainly recognize in the story an allusion to
the ludicrous belief of the Canaanite religion that by means of sacred
prostitution-sexual intercourse with male and female prostitutes at the
Canaanite shrines-it was possible to enter into special relationship with the
god or goddess repre sented by the sacred prostitute.
In
the fertility-cult ritual, sacred prostitution climaxed the rite which hailed
the return of the rains and fertility. “In the punishment which follows
the fornication of the sons of God with the daughters of men the rains came
with a vengeance. The floods cover the earth, and everything upon its fertile
surface is swept away by cleansing waters.
Ellis
suggests that the same polemic against the fertility rites is to be found in
the Sodom narrative. “For their crimes, which the author indicates were
the unnatural sexual vices the Canaanites had made part of their fertility
rites, the Eve plain cities are wiped off the map.”38 The same connection
between homosexual practices and idolatry which, as we shall see, is present in
all the biblical passages is also present here. Agaln, the punishment is a
“rain”; this time a rain of fire and brimstone, and the result is a
barren earth on which nothing will ever grow: Even in this interpretation, the
primary crime of Sodom is idolatry, and not homosexual practices as such but
these practices as an expression of sacred prostitution.
We
shall deal later, under the heading of tradition, with the gradual historical
development which transformed the understanding of the sin of Sodom in Western
Christian tradition from a sin primarily of inhospitality to the stranger to
one of homosexual practices. At this point we can conclude, however, that the
most important biblical basis for the traditional condemnation of homosexual
practices as clearly against the express will of God proves on examination the
most vulnerable. It has been accepted practically without question that God
himself declared his judgment upon homosexual practices once and for all time
by the destruction of the cities of the plains. But the Sodom and Gomorrah
narrative possibly had nothing whatever to do with such practices. Even if one
continues to hold that there is a suggestion of the presence of this sexual
element, it does not constitute the essence of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Rather, the sin remains primarily one of inhospitality. And even if Ellis is
correct, the homosexual practices are condemned not in themselves but as part
of the idolatrous fertility cult of the Canaanites.
If
this interpretation of the true sin of Sodom is correct, then we are dealing
here with one of the supremely ironic paradoxes of history. For thousands of
years in the Christian West the homosexual has been the victim of inhospitable
treatment. Condemned by the Church, he has been the victim of persecution,
torture, and even death. In the name of a mistaken understanding of the crime
of Sodom and Gomorrah, the true crime of Sodom and Gomorrah has been and
continues to be repeated every day. Before advancing to an examination of the
Sodom story in tradition, let us first examine the other passages in the Old
and New Testaments understood as condemning homosexual practices.
Problems o f Translation
Two
Greek words in 1 Cor. 6:9 are usually translated as having to do with
homosexuality; they are malakói and
ársenokóitai. The second term occurs again in 1
Tim. 1:10. There is a venerable tradition in English translations of the Bible
to assume that these terms apply to homosexual activity. The King James version
translates them as “neither the effeminate nor the abusers of themselves
with mankind” and the Rheims-Douai version similarly speaks of the
“effeminate” and “liers with mankind.” The first edition of
the Revised Standard version translates both terms with the one word
“homosexuals.” The only major variation of this tradition is to be
found in the Jerusalem Bible, which uses the terms “calamites and
sodomites,” and the Smith-Goodspeed (Chicago) Bible, which renders them as
“sensual” and those “given to unnatural vices.” It is
interesting to note that the Spanish version of the Jerusalem Bible uses
“los homosexuales,” whereas the French version speaks of
“depraves” and “gens de moeurs infames.” As John Boswell
notes: “Cultural differences appear to exercise considerable influence
over the translation of Biblical passages dealing with sexual morality.”39
Bailey particularly takes to task the translators of the Revised Standard
version for their use of the single term “homosexuals”:
But
the translation approved by those responsible for the American Revised Standard
version is unfortunately both inaccurate and objectionable . . . it is most
regrettable that the reviewers should have shown themselves unaware or
unappreciative of the clear distinction which must be made between the
homosexual condition (which is morally neutral) and homosexual
practices. Use of the word “homosexuals” inevitably suggests
the genuine invert, even though he be a man of irreproachable morals, is
automatically branded as unrighteous and excluded from the kingdom of God, just
as if he were the most depraved of sexual perverts.
The
variation in translations points to the fact that there is very little
understanding of the precise meaning of Paul’s terms. What is needed is a
contextual analysis and an examination of the same terms in other sources. It
is truly surprising that despite the fact that the tradition of moral
condemnation of homosexuality springs in large part from these biblical
passages, little serious scholarly work has been produced concerning their
exact meaning. Translations appear at times to be based on preconceptions
rather than serious scholarship.
The
immediate context itself gives little or no clue as to the precise meaning Paul
intended by these words. In the Corinthian passage Paul lists the types of
sinners who are to be excluded from the kingdom of God; and in the Timothy
passage, those who have not received the law of God.
S.
Wibbing argues that Paul derived these lists from the popular Stoic list of
excesses contrary to reason .41 Both lists have been recognized by scholars as
remarkably confusing, and the context is quite loose. Consequently we must turn
to the use of the same terms in other sources to discover their meaning. The
word malakós literally means soft (e.g., Luke 7:25; Mt. 11:8). In
a moral context it is normally employed to signify loose, morally weak, or
lacking in self-control. There is no justification for applying
malakós specifically to homosexuality. In patristic Greek
malakía usually referred to generally dissolute behavior and
occasionally referred to specific sexual activity such as masturbation, but
never to homosexuality as such. It could conceivably include that, but its
normal use referred to any form of immorality. I need not stress the point here
that the concept of “effeminacy” has no necessary connection with
bomosexuality.
Before considering the second word, ársenokóitai,
it is important to recall to mind that there was no word in classical,
biblical, or patristic Greek with the same meaning as the English word
homosexual. In those pre-Freudian days neither the Greeks nor the Romans
recognized homosexuality as a psychological phenomenon or condition apart from
general sexual behavior. There appears to be no consciousness of a dichotomy
such as the modern homosexual versus heterosexual. There were names, however,
for persons who practiced homosexual activity. They included, for example,
paiderastês, pallakós , kínaidos,
àrrenomanes and paidophthóros. If it were Paul’s
intention to indicate general homosexual activity as such, it is probable that
he would have selected one of these terms.
The
word ársenokóitai, then, probably does not refer to
general homosexual behavior. However, what Paul did mean by it is difficult to
ascertain. The use of the noun in the plural does not occur in Greek literature
before the Pauline text. Apart from a second-century use of the same word in
the Apology of Aristides, where from the context it seems to mean “an
obsessive corruptor of boys ”’43 the most important usage for the
purpose of clearer definition occurs in the sixthcentury Penitentiale of
Joanne’s jejunator, Patriarch of Constantinople in 586 under Mauritius."
Here it designates a specific sex act, most likely anal intercourse. Nor does
this refer exclusively to homosexuality, since in a later passage use is made
of the same term to refer to a sex act between men and women .
Some
indication of what Paul might have meant by the term can be derived from his
use of kóitai in the plural. For this usage appears to refer to
excess in sexual behavior (cf. Rom. 13:13). It is possible that the author
attached to the compound a meaning like “male prostitution. ” This
interpretation is borne out by the Vulgate rendering masculi
concubitores, that is, finale concubines. As we shall see, this
interpretation will be strengthened by the more general context of the Old
Testament where male prostitution was usually associated with the same context
of idolatry.
The Interpretation of Romans 1:26
The
strongest New Testament argument against homosexual activity as intrinsically
immoral has been derived traditionally from ‘Romans 1:26, where this
activity is indicted as parà phúsin. The normal English
translation for this phrase has been “against nature.” As John
Boswell notes: “The modern reader is apt to read into that phrase a wealth
of associations derived from later philosophical developments, scholastic
theology, Freudian psychology, social taboos, as well as personal
misgivings.”" Once again it is difficult to ascertain what this phrase
meant for Paul. The same phrase in Romans 4:18 is used to express the idea that
God himself is acting parà phúsin in grafting a wild olive
branch (the Gentiles) onto a cultivated tree (the inheritance of the Jews).
This usage makes it clear that the phrase itself does not necessarily imply a
moral judgment on the action as wrong.
From
an examination of the seven uses of the word phúsis in the
epistles of Paul, one can begin to understand what Paul meant by the word.
Although it is most likely that Paul accepted the phrase from the popular Stoic
philosophy of the day, he does not necessarily indicate an intrinsic nature or
essence in the philosophical sense, such as would serve the basis of a
natural-law judgment. Rather, it is always linked to religious and cultural
heritage. The Jews are Jews “by; nature” (Gal. 2:15); and the
Gentiles are uncircumcised “bynature” (Ram. 2:27). Although we are
all “by nature” children of wrath (Epb. 2:3), the Gentiles can do
‘by nature"-i.e. by custom without hearing the word-the things of the law
(Ram. 2:14). With the exception of Gal. 4:8, where reference. is made to
men who “by nature” are not gods, the character referred to by
phúsis does not necessarily represent something, that is innate, but
could be a matter of training and social ‘ conditioning. This is evident,
for example, in 1 Cor. 11:14:"Does not nature teach you that, if a man has long
hair, it is a shame unto him?"
When
he uses the word nature Paul does not make a sharp distinction between natural
law and social custom. For example, in the phrase ten phusiken kresin
(Rom. 1:26) Paul does not make the distinction between nature and custom
which was common among educated Greeks of the time (e.g., Ignatius to the
Trallians 1.1: “either against custom [kresin] or nature
[phusin]”). Rather, he tends to fuse together the concepts
of custom and essential character. There seems to be a parallel in Paul’s
mind between what is parà phúsin and the Old
Testament concept of toevah., i.e. what is not proper according to
Jewish law and custom.
Consequently, two interpretations can be justified concerning what Paul meant
by the phrase. It could refer to the individual pagan, who goes beyond his own
sexual appetites in order to indulge in new sexual pleasures. A strong argument
.for this interpretation is the explicit reference to the pagans having
“abandoned” the “natural uses” of their sexuality for that
which is “beyond nature.” The use here of the aorist participle
(aphéntes) considerably strengthens the image of a conscious
choice of a type of activity contrary to their normal inclinations. Paul
apparently refers only to homosexual acts indulged in by those he considered to
be otherwise heterosexually inclined; acts which represent a voluntary choice
to act contrary to their ordinary sexual appetite. William G. Thompson, S.J.,
is inclined to agree with this interpretation:
Concerning the Pauline material, you have come to the same conclusions I have
concerning the meaning of “homosexual.” Let me quote Fr.
Fitzmyer’s comments on Romans 1:26: “The contrast between
‘females’ and ‘males’ (1:27) makes it clear that the
.sexual perversion of which Paul speaks is homosexuality (specifically
Lesbianism). The depravity of the perversion is the merited consequence of
pagan impiety; having exchanged their true God for a false one (1:25), pagans
inevitably exchanged their true natural functions for perverted ones . . .
(Jerome Biblical Commentary, Article 53, Number 26) ." It seems clear that the
situation is one of perversion rather than inversion, as you indicate. Hence
the passage does not touch the contemporary issue of homosexuality understood
as inversion. Paul simply does not speak to that question.
The
second possibility is that phúsis refers to the
“nature” of the chosen people who were forbidden by Levitical law to
have homosexual relations. Paul can be understood as arguing that the
recognition of the true God necessarily involves acceptance of the Levitical
law. Both interpretations are probably valid. Paul seems to be implying that
the Gentiles, having known the truth of God and rejecting it, as a result
reject their true nature as regards their sexual appetites, going beyond what
was natural to them (heterosexual activity) and what was approved for the Jews.
Consequently, the Pauline epistles do not explicitly treat of the problem of
homosexual activity between persons who share the homosexual condition, and as
such cannot be read as explicitly condemning such behavior. Neither the
malakói nor the ársenokóitai
were necessarily homosexuals; the former were simply debauched
individuals and the latter were probably male prostitutes or those given to
anal intercourse, which is not necessarily nor exclusively an homosexual
activity. The persons referred to in Romans 1:26 are probably not
homosexuals-i.e. those who are psychologically inclined toward their own
sex-since they are portrayed as “abandoning their natural customs.”
Moreover, the ambiguity of Paul’s use of the word phúsis as
including what is customary precludes an interpretation of the passage as
condemning homosexual activity as intrinsically evil independent of the
actor’s condition and his social laws and customs.
The Old Testament Context
Because of his Jewish background Paul obviously found the rampant homosexuality
he observed in Greece very shocking. His main point was always that the
prevalance of homosexual activity was a sign of alienation from God. He
obviously had in mind the Old Testament prohibition of homosexual activity.
Consequently, we must note the context of the texts within the Old Testament in
which the question of homosexual activity is treated. Homosexual activity was
definitely connected in Jewish consciousness with idolatry. An example of this
is to be found in Deuteronomy 23:17:
None of the Israelite women shall become a temple-prostitute, nor shall any of
the Israelite men become a temple-prostitute. You shall never bring the gains
of a harlot or the earnings of a male prostitute as a votive offering to the
temple of the Lord your God; for both are abominable to the Lord your God.
It
was a practice among some of Israel’s neighbors to use both sexes as part
of the fertility rites in temple services. Since the Gods were understood as
sexual, they were to be worshiped in overt sexual acts. Whenever homosexual
activity is mentioned in the Old Testament, the author usually has in mind the
use male worshipers made of male prostitutes provided by the temple
authorities.
Paul
was well aware of this context from the Old Testament. In reading Paul, it is
important to keep in mind what Thielicke refers to as Paul’s “central
concern” in the text dealing with homosexual activity, especially Romans
1:26. Paul obviously believed that homosexual activity, as far as he understood
it, was the result of idolatry. As Wood points out, one must remember the
sequence of events as Paul portrays them in Romans." One is not idolatrous
because he is a homosexual; he is, however, involved in homosexual activities
because he is idolatrous. God punished the idolater by delivering him over to
his selfishness and passions. It would appear, then, that Paul treats of
homosexual activities only within the context of idol worship. The Holiness
Code (Lev. 18:22, 20:13) origi nally established the connection between
idolatry and homosexual activity. The Code specifically warns the Israelites
against accepting the idolatrous practices of the Canaanites. One of the
provisions of the Code is that homosexual activity is punishable by death.
Several other cultural and historical circumstances ought also to be
considered. One must keep in mind the pro-fertility bent of the Old Testament
authors due to underpopulation, with the result that any willful destruction of
viable human seed was regarded as a serious crime. Another factor influencing
the Old Testament attitude on homosexual activity was the strong Hebrew stress
on preserving the family name through progeny. In fact, participation in
God’s covenant with the chosen people depended on having children. One of
the worst curses which could befall a Jewish male was that of sterility.
Still
another contextual factor has to do with the common use in biblical times of
the act of sodomy as an expression of domination, contempt, and scorn.
According to J. Edgar Brun, the ultimate “why” of the wrongness of
homosexual activity in Israelite eyes can best be discerned in the account of
Noah and his sons after the flood (Gen. 9:18-27) . The second part of the story
has obviously been expurgated and revised. The Hebrew makes it quite clear that
Ham did not merely look at his father but actually did something to him. Yet
whereas Ham is the wrongdoer, Canaan, ,his son, is the person cursed. Brun
believes the story was undoubtedly an anti-Egyptian polemic and searches to
reconstruct it with an episode in the Egyptian epic entitled The Contending
of Horus and Seth(X1:3-4)
Horus
was the posthumous son and heir of the god Osiris, the primordial king and
giver of life. He was invited by his uncle, Seth, to spend a day. Seth’s
real motive was not to show him hospitality but to disqualify him from
inheriting his father’s royal power. To this end, while Horus slept Seth
committed an act of sodomy upon him. Since sodomy was inflicted as a punishment
on a defeated enemy and was a symbol of domination, Seth could then claim that
he had conquered Horus and demand the kingship in his place. Brun claims that
the original biblical story followed the same line: “By committing sodomy
upon his father, who was the ancestor of all men after the flood . . . Ham
(Egypt) could also claim the right to dominate all mankind.”’8 The
revision, which omits any explicit reference to a sexual act and makes Canaan
the recipient of Noah’s curse, was prompted by the fact that the
Canaanites had become the immediate threat to Israel’s political and
religious survival.
Calling attention then to the common practice, especially of the Egyptians, of
inflicting sodomy as a punishment upon a defeated male enemy as a symbol of
domination, Brun suggests that the principal reason the Israelites regarded
homosexual practices as an abomination was that
they too viewed sodomy as an expression of scorn; and in a society where the
dignity of the male was a primary consideration, voluntary acts of a homosexual
nature could not be tolerated. Both parties would then be undermining the very
foundations of a patriarchal society; the one because he uses another as a
woman; the other because he allows himself to be used as a woman. The dignity
of the male is dishonored by both.
We
-have already seen McKenzie’s comment that one of the aims of the narrator
of the crime of Gibeah was to establish the absolute dignity of the male. It is
interesting to note that the Holiness Code only condemns male homosexuality; no
mention is made of female homosexual practices, but there is a condemnation
under penalty of death of any woman who has sexual relations with an animal.
As
Herman van de Spijker notes in his summary of biblical teaching concerning
homosexual activities: both in the Old and the New Testaments, wherever the
Bible clearly seems to refer to homosexual activity, we must recognize a
judgment of condemnation. However, every text dealing with homosexual activity
also refers to aggravating circumstances such as idolatry, sacred prostitution,
promiscuity, violent rape, seduction of children, and violation of guests’
rights. As a result one can never be sure to what extent the condemnation is of
homosexual activities as such or only of homosexual activities under these
circumstances: “Nowhere is there a specific text which explicitly rejects
all homosexual activities as such independent of the circumstances.” Van
de Spijker is nevertheless of the opinion that such an objective universal
condemnation can be deduced from these texts taken in conjunction with the
biblical image of mankind in the creation account of Genesis; he concludes that
“all homosexual relationships, even when they are true expressions of an
Ithou relationship,, are objectively contrary to nature as the order of
creation.”
The Creation Account in Genesis
There
are two accounts in Genesis of the creation of human sexuality. The first
account, a version dated around 550-500: B.C., is from the Priestly tradition:
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him,
male and female he created them." This account clearly indicates’, that
the divine purpose in creating sexual differentiation was’ procreation.
Consequently, the first covenant between God’ and humanity was a
procreative covenant. “And God blessed them and said to them: ‘Be
fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it . . . ."’
However, according to scholars the second account, at tributed to the Yahwist
author, is much more ancient,’ date 950 B.C. In this account God’s
purpose in creating sexual differentiation is not associated with procreation;
rather, the purpose was companionship and a cure for loneliness: “Then the
Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make
him a helper fit for him.” Thus mutual love and fulfillment is equally a
biblical norm for human sexuality. Many moralists seem to ignore the
significance of the Yahwist’s account of creation and assume that
procreation is the only biblical norm.
There
is, then, another and, perhaps, more important reason apart from individual
texts why some moralists believe that all homosexual activity is condemned in
Scripture as contrary to the will of God for man. This reason has to do with
the interpretation they give to the creation account in Genesis. As Neale Secor
argues, many Christian ethicists read a condemnation of all homosexual activity
into the texts dealing specifically with that question because they are reading
these particular texts with a basic assumption. The assumption is that the
homosexual condition is the result of man’s fall and is a deviation from
the God-willed state of heterosexuality as expressed in the creation. Under
this assumption sexual differentiation is not only normative for human
relations; it assumes a metaphysical significance in the very constitution of
what is essentially human. “To be human becomes by hypothesis to be purely
male or female. Only in monogamous marriage desirous of reproduction is this
essential duality held in balance.” In the Priestly tradition in the Old
Testament, the human male apart from the human female was not considered a-full
human being. As Rabbi El’azar put it: “Any Jew who has no wife is no
man.”
Curran appears to be in agreement with this position. As he sees it, human
sexuality derives its meaning exclusively “in terms of a relationship of
male and female in a procreative union of love.” To defend this position
he makes a general appeal to scriptural data. “The scriptural data
undoubtedly points in this direction, even to the possible extent that the
likeness to God is precisely in terms of the sexuality by which men and women
are able to enter into a covenant of love with one another." In the opinion of
Karl Barth, “man and woman-in the relationship conditioned by this
irreversible order-are the human creatures of God and as such the image of God
and likeness of the covenant of grace.”54 Since man’s likeness to God
is to be found in his power to love, some moralists find it necessary to read
into that love relationship the specific reality of heterosexual love, almost
to the exclusion of all other forms of human community and human love. They
tend to identify the biblical concept of person with heterosexual orientation
and find in that orientation the divine image in man.
In
contrast with this understanding of the scriptural data is T. C.
DeKruijf’s study, The Bible on Sexuality. DeKruijf concludes his
survey of Old Testament texts concerning sexual morality by pointing out that
the primary message of the Old Testament concerning sexual morality was that
love, including sexual love, requires respect for the other person; and the sin
which man can commit in his sexual conduct with another consists in dishonoring
the person of a fellow human being. “If one does not acknowledge the only
true personal God, it follows unavoidably that one will also not acknowledge
one’s fellow man as a person who has a value of his own.”" As we have
seen, J. Edgar Brun found an identical reason for the condemnation of
homosexual activities, since in the cultural and historical context of the Old
Testament such activities could only be envisaged as expressions of hatred and
scorn. The essential evil of homosexual activities appeared to be the
dishonoring of a fellow human being.
DeKruijf points out, however, a very important difference between the treatment
of sexuality in the Old and the New Testament. Marriage no longer plays the
same role in the New Testament that it did in the Old. In the Old Testament
“contact with God was connected with their being the people of God,
because in this chosen people God dealt with man. Therefore it was important
for every man and woman in Israel to receive this life and pass it on in
marriage.” To understand the difference of viewpoint in the New Testament
it is important to remember that the new people of God are no longer bound by
blood relationship; membership in the new people of God is no longer a question
of human descent. Consequently, marriage no longer occupies the central place
it had in Israel. “In the New Covenant it is given to anyone to be fertile
in the new people of God through a love which surpasses even marital love in
value and therefore in fertility.” This new understanding of love lies at
the origin of other vocational choices besides marriage, such as a life of
sexual abstinence, and other forms of human community, such as the celibate
community. One can no longer identify the love between humans that makes them
the likeness of God univocally with the heterosexual relationship in marriage.
Another important difference between the Old and New Testaments concerning
human sexuality has to do with the belief in personal immortality. For the most
part in the Old Testament there was little stress on personal immortality;
rather, stress was placed on the survival of the “people” and
one’s own survival in and through one’s children. However, the New
Testament emphasis on resurrection carried with it the belief in personal
immortality and, consequently, freed the individual from the necessity of
marrying and bearing children in order to achieve a form of survival beyond the
grave. This change of emphasis is of particular interest vis a vis the
homosexual, since, as many psychologists point out, one of the most profound
roots of homophobia is the connection, unconscious for the most part, between
homosexuality, barrenness, and death.
Nowhere is this new attitude concerning human sexuality more evident than in
the account of the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch in the Acts of the Apostles
(8:26-39) . The Lucan author had as his purpose to depict the work of the Holy
Spirit in the formation of the first Christian community and how that community
differed from its predecessor. He stresses that people who were considered
outcasts by Israel for various reasons were to be included in the new
community. The first group are the Samaritans. The second group, symbolized by
the eunuch, are those who for sexual reasons were excluded from the Old
Testament community. “No one who has had his testicles crushed or his
penis cut off shall marry into the Lord’s community” (Deut. 23:1) .
However, in Isaiah 56:2-8 there is an explicit prophecy that with the coming of
the Messiah and the establishment of the new covenant the eunuch, who was
formerly excluded from the community of God, will be given a special place in
the Lord’s house and an immortal value:
Let
not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say: “The Lord will
surely separate me from his people”; and let not the eunuch say:
“Behold, I am a dry tree.” For thus says the Lord: “To the
eunuchs who keep my sabbaths, who choose the things that please me, and hold
fast my covenant, I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a
name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name which
shall not be cut off . . . these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make
them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices
will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer
for all peoples.” Thus says the Lord God, who gathers the outcasts of
Israel; I will gather yet others to him besides those already gathered.
The
application of this prophecy to the homosexual can be defended, because the
term “eunuch” in the New Testament is used not only in its literal
sense-i.e., those who have been physically castrated-but also in a symbolic
sense for all those who for various reasons do not marry and bear children. For
example, in Matthew 19:12 Jesus, discussing marriage and divorce, says to his
apostles: “There are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are
eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made
themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.”,
The
first category-those eunuchs who have been so from birth-is the closest
description we have in the Bible of what we understand today as a homosexual.
It should come as no surprise, then, that the first group of outcasts of Israel
that the Holy Spirit includes within the new covenant community is symbolized
by the Ethiopian eunuch. It is the Spirit who takes the initiative by leading
Philip to the encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch of the court of Candace. The
eunuch believes in Christ as the Messiah and receives baptism and the Spirit
and rides on into history “full of joy.” The symbolism of the passage
is quite obvious. The Holy Spirit takes the initiative in leading the new
Christian community to include among its members those who were excluded for
sexual reasons from the Old Testament community.
Later, when we consider natural law ethics, we will also consider whether, in
the light of recent psycho-sexual discoveries; heterosexual images of what it
means to be a man or a woman derived from the Bible can be uncritically
accepted as God-given aspects of creation or whether it must be determined to
what extent they are human creations open to serious theological criticism and
possible change and development. We can conclude at this point, however, that a
general consideration of human sexuality in the Bible leads to only one certain
conclusion: those sexual relations can be justified morally which are a true
expression of human love. Consequently, once all the cultural and historical
circumstances are kept in mind, the only condemnation of homosexual activity to
be found with certainty in Scripture is a condemnation of perverse homosexual
activity indulged in by otherwise truly heterosexual individuals as an
expression of contempt or self-centered lust and usually associated with some
form of idol worship. In the Old Testament an attempt was made to desacralize
human sexuality by removing it from the realm of the mysterious and impersonal
forces of nature. In the New Testament an attempt was made to resacralize human
sexuality by integrating it into the ideal context of free, interpersonal human
love.
The
positive ideal concerning the use of human sexuality proposed in the New
Testament is the need all human beings are under to struggle to integrate their
sexual powers into their total personality, so that their sexual drive can be
totally at the disposition of their desire to achieve union in love with their
fellow human beings and with God. There is a considerable body of evidence-the
Hooker, Shofield and Weinberg and Williams studies, for example, which,we will
discuss further onthat many homosexuals have avoided the traps of promiscuity
and depersonalized sex by entering into mature homosexual relationships with
one partner with the intention of fidelity and mutual support. By means of this
relationship they have not only escaped promiscuity but have grown as human
beings. They have learned to integrate their sexual powers in a positive way
into their personality, with the result that these impulses become no longer a
negative, compulsive and destructive force, but an instrument within their
control for the expression of human love. There does not seem to be a clear
condemnation of such a relationship in Scripture; yet under these circumstances
a homosexual relationship could possibly be interpreted as fulfilling the
positive ideals of Scripture."’
Join our Women Priests' Mailing List
for occasional newsletters:
An email will be immediately sent to you
requesting your confirmation.
