Presentations and Publications

The Biblical Case for Full Equality
for GLBT Persons in the Church
by William Coughlin Hunt, STD

Based on the March 14, 2001, presentation in the CPCSM Outreach Luncheon Series

For more than thirty years I have been involved in the discussion of the moral status of homosexual activity. A recurrent theme in this sometimes vitriolic exchange of views has been the claim that the Bible condemns all homosexual acts. For many, this is the clinching argument. As a result, (they say) no matter how much we respect the civil rights of persons whose psycho-sexual orientation is basically toward persons of the same gender, we can never approve of their engaging in genital sexual activity. Since the activity is immoral, persons who engage in it can be treated differently in the Church. For example, a person in an active lesbian or gay relationship can be excluded from pastoral ministry.

The comparison with alcoholism is instructive. It is no sin to be an alcoholic, but alcoholism is a destructive tendency which needs to be kept in check. Many Christians consider homosexuality to be similar to alcoholism and support their position by an appeal to passages from the Bible.

This argument has caused me to take a careful look at the biblical passages which condemn same sex activity, and I would like to share with you the development of my views on the subject.

An Abrupt Introduction to the Issue
My introduction to the issue was rather abrupt. In late December 1970 the January 26, 1971 edition of LOOK magazine hit the newsstands. One article featured a homosexual couple, Jack Baker and Michael McConnell, along with a picture of them greeting a priest at Mass during the kiss of peace. According to the article, "A Catholic all his life, Baker continues to receive Communion at the university's Newman Center chapel . . . ." On January 1, 1971, I took up my full time assignment as director of that Newman Center on the Minneapolis campus of the University of Minnesota. It just happened that Jack Baker was the student body president!

It wasn't long before I had a flood of mail. A few were angry "How-could-you?!" letters, but most of them were letters expressing relief that it was all right for homosexual persons to receive communion. One of the letters was from a divorced woman who had not been to communion for years. She reasoned that if homosexual persons could "receive the sacraments," there was no longer any reason for her to stay away.

I was thrust into the controversy over homosexuality with no forewarning and very little preparation. Our massive three volume seminary moral theology textbook devoted only a few pages to the topic. The standard collection of authoritative Church documents had only one oblique reference to homosexual behavior out of 3917 entries. (See Denzinger-Schoenmetzer [1965] no. 2044.)

So, I began to study the Scripture passages that purportedly condemned homosexual activity. (For an excellent scholarly study of the scriptural texts see John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980], pp. 91 - 117)

Examination of Scripture Passages
The first thing that struck me was that the texts that condemn same-sex sexual activity refer to acts that are violent (such as homosexual rape), involve children, are the result of unbridled lust, or are associated with idolatry in one way or another. Nobody I knew was defending homosexual activity for those reasons.

As I continued to study the texts, it dawned on me that the biblical authors were unaware of homosexual orientation. They presumed that all men were attracted to women and marriage, and that all women were attracted to men. They passed no judgment on affectionate genital sexual relations between consenting adults of the same gender, because they didn't even imagine it. This is not to say that they approved it; they simply didn't consider it.

A closer reading of the biblical texts, especially the ones in the book of Leviticus, raised still more questions in my mind. Passages in Leviticus condemn intercourse during menstruation, lending money at interest to a fellow Israelite, hybridization of cattle, sowing two kinds of grain in one field, wearing a garment made from two kinds of fabric, or eating shellfish. Other passages in Leviticus require circumcision of all males, strict observance of Saturday as a day of rest, and the observance of four Jewish feasts which were established by "perpetual statute." Finally, a passage in Leviticus permits making non-Israelites "perpetual slaves."

Why is it that Christians feel free to disregard all these commandments but feel bound to condemn all forms of homosexual activity? I had done my doctoral dissertation on doctrinal development. If over the centuries the Christian Church set aside the biblical condemnation of taking interest on loans (usury) and the prohibition of any sort of images of God (the first commandment), is it possible that a similar development could take place with regard to homosexual activity?

Manhood: Honor, Reproductivity, and Holiness (Purity)
In the nineties I discovered social science criticism of the Bible, especially the work of Leland White. (See Leland J. White, "A Test Case in Biblical Ethics: Part I," Biblical Theology Bulletin, Vol. 25 [Spring 1995] No. 1, pp. 14 - 23.) It helped me understand the basic rationale for the condemnation of same-sex sexual activity in the Bible.

Over the past few decades a clearer picture has emerged of ancient Israelite society and its social values. It was a male-dominated society which espoused three main values: 1) honor, 2) reproductivity, and 3) purity.

Honor
Honor was public esteem enjoyed by a person or group. The honorable man was in control of certain spaces -- his own body, his home including the bodies of the family members who lived there, and his city. Thus, the honorable man sat among his peers at the city gate and helped determine the life of his village, town, or city. The honorable man likewise controlled entrance to his dwelling, especially through the exercise of hospitality to strangers. Loss of honor or shame occurred when these spaces were wrested from his control or penetrated.

Male honor related to women in a special way. David D. Gilmore notes that honor was portrayed as "the reward for successful power maneuvers in which a man's relationship to other men [is evaluated] through women." (Quoted in White, p. 17.) Men are in competition for control over women with the reward being honor or respect. One of the greatest affronts to a man's honor is if another man has sexual relations with one of his women -- his wife or his unmarried daughter, sister, or ward.

It is important to note that honor or shame were not matters of intention. The mere fact that a man was unable to beget a son was shameful, even though his wife took the blame. If a man fell on hard times and through no fault of his own lost his property, it brought shame on his family.

Reproductivity
The second value relating to manhood was reproductivity. It was opposed to our notion of productivity. A man's degree of honor, his place in society, was determined at birth. For him to attempt to rise above the status of his father, to surpass him, would have been considered shameful behavior. A man attempted to reproduce the status of his father in his own life and in the lives of his male children. In this way he carried on his father's name.

In terms of sexual relations, the metaphor of a seed planted in soil was determinative. This was long before the discovery of sperm and egg around the end of the eighteenth century of our era. According to White, "Giving life is the foundation of male honor." (p. 18) As a result, female behavior posed a threat to male honor. Although it was easy to verify who the mother of a baby was, the child's paternity could be called into question. Another man might have sown his seed in that field. "No humiliation could be greater, except possibly the humiliation of a male being used as a female, i.e., as a field for another man's seed, making the violated body a field of shame." (p. 18)

This helps us understand the rationale behind another practice among ancient people. In celebrating their triumph victorious soldiers used to subject conquered soldiers to anal intercourse. This was a sign of their abject humiliation. They had been reduced to the status of a woman, and an infertile one at that.

Quite possibly, the first verse of Psalm 110 ("The Lord says to my Lord, 'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.'") is a reference to this practice, at least if "foot" or "feet" is a euphemism for "penis" as it is in other places in the Bible. (See Isaiah 6. 2, 7. 20; Exodus 4. 25; Judges 3. 24; 1 Samuel 24. 3.)

Purity
The third value relating to manhood was purity, or holiness or cleanliness. After the Babylonian exile, purity was an important project for the restored nation of Israel. The leaders were convinced that idolatry had caused the disaster. Infidelity to God had led to destruction and exile.

In the restored nation they were determined to wipe out any trace of idolatry and everything which, in their mind, was associated with Gentile practices. The new nation had to be holy, pure, and clean. They systematically built a protective fence around the worship of Yahweh as the one and only true God. In this project they were remarkably successful. Idolatry does not seem to have been a problem for the Israelites from that point on.

Much of the Bible as we know it today was committed to writing in this atmosphere of striving for purity. The biblical authors took great pains to reject anything which could be remotely associated with Gentile life and worship. Recent studies suggest that Israel's Semitic neighbors abhorred same-sex activity as much as Israelis did. However, in the mind of the biblical authors it was associated with idolatry and, thus, contrary to the holiness demanded by the God of Israel.

Purity abhors mixtures and ambiguity. Everything has its place or character. "A water-creature without fins does not belong with the fish; hence shellfish are unclean." (White, p. 18) A man should not have sexual relations with his step daughter since it would confuse the male line of inheritance. Boundaries, roles, order, and hierarchy were all important. Acts were "sanctioned because they [were] inappropriate for this or that class of persons, in this or that time or place, etc. . . ." (White, p. 20) The result was a network of practices and prohibitions designed to set the People of Israel apart as a nation holy to God.

Evaluation of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior: The Book of Leviticus
Given this male-dominated culture of honor, reproductivity, and purity, it is not hard to see why the ancient Israelites condemned same-sex sexual activity. For a man to be penetrated by another man, whether intentionally or unintentionally, was a loss of honor because he had been reduced to the state of a woman. Hence, the literal reading of Leviticus 18. 22: "You shall not sleep the sleep of a woman with a man."

It was also a violation of the value of reproductivity. It made no sense to sow seed on a barren field. Finally, it was unclean or impure because it led to confusion of male and female roles and was associated with the practice of pagans.

Paul's Letter to the Romans
Much the same is true of the first chapter of Paul's Letter to the Romans. The burden of the beginning of that letter is that all people, whether Jews or Gentiles, "have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Thus, all people stand in need of the grace of God through Jesus Christ in order to attain salvation.

From Paul's perspective the basic sin of pagans was idolatry. They knew God but rejected him for idols. This rebellion against God set off a chain reaction in which each of the subordinate faculties of a person rebelled against its respective superior faculty. Instead of a disciplined arrangement where the mind was subordinate to God and the appetites subordinate to the mind, literally all hell broke loose. Paul says that "they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened." (1. 21) "Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and served the creature rather than the Creator . . . ." (1. 24 - 25)

Then comes the passage relating to same-sex activity. "For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for this error." (Romans 1. 26 - 27)

Several things need to be noted about this passage. First, the persons Paul condemns are not homosexual in the sense of having a predominant or exclusive psycho-sexual erotic orientation toward persons of their own gender. He is condemning same-sex acts committed by apparently heterosexual persons. These persons were "naturally" inclined toward persons of the opposite sex, just as they were "naturally" inclined toward monotheism. (Boswell, p. 109) By turning away from the knowledge of God, they pulled the linchpin on their passions which went reeling out of control.

Second, "nature" did not mean the same thing to Paul as it does to us. "The concept of 'natural law' was not fully developed until more than a millennium after Paul's death." (Boswell, p. 110) For Paul, "unnatural" ("para physin") meant "unexpected, not customary, unusual, or different from the normal order of things." Later, in the Letter to the Romans, Paul uses it to describe the action of God in saving the Gentiles. "For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree and grafted, contrary to nature ("para physin"), into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree." (11. 24) In his First Letter to the Corinthians, Paul states: "Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him . . . ?" (11. 14)

Third, the images in the first chapter of the Letter to the Romans are not of caring sexual relations between consenting adults. Rather, we are presented with examples of people who are driven by their passions (not necessarily sexual) which are out of their conscious control.

"They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless." (1. 29 - 31)

Thus, Paul put same-sex sexual activity squarely within the framework of honor and purity. In his thinking, it resulted from dishonoring God, and it violated the value of purity by its association with idolatry and its confusion of the characteristic roles of men and women.

Questions Raised by the Behavior of Jesus
The Second Testament authors do not deal with the specific question of the morality of consensual sexual activity between adults who have a basic homosexual orientation. However, they do present a picture of Jesus which calls into question the cultural presuppositions which led to the Levitical prohibition.

Purity
One of the central themes of the Gospels is the conflict of Jesus with the Jewish authorities of his day over matters of purity or cleanliness. Jesus instructs the disciples who have been sent out two by two to "remain in the same house, eating and drinking whatever they provide . . . ." (Luke 10. 8) In other words, they were to eat what was put before them and not ask questions about the purity of the food. In John's Gospel, Jesus asks the Samaritan woman for a drink even though "Jews do not share things in common with Samaritans." (John 4. 9) All four Gospels depict Jesus as cleansing the Temple, the holiest site in all of Israel.

In the wake of the successful mission to the Gentiles, most -- if not all --of the purity rules were abandoned. Even the prohibitions of the so-called Council of Jerusalem do not seem to have been absolute. (Acts 15. 28 - 29) For example, Paul allows eating food sacrificed to idols. (See 1 Corinthians 8.)

Reproductivity
Jesus also radically undermined the value of reproductivity. Nowhere in the canonical Gospels does Jesus mention his earthly father. He abandons his home and his inherited social status as a construction wood worker to become a preacher who moved about from place to place. Jesus is at odds with his family and instructs his followers to turn their backs on the most sacred family obligations for the sake of the kingdom. Jesus appears to have been unmarried with no children of his own to carry on his father's name. Nowhere in the Gospels does he recommend having children.

Honor
Crucifixion was the ultimate in loss of honor or shame. Deuteronomy 21. 23 says that "anyone hung on a tree is under God's curse." Explaining this was a major problem for Second Testament writers. (See, for example, Galatians 3. 13 - 14.)

Moreover, Jesus radically undercut the rigid distinction between the sexes which was so much a part of the honor/shame culture of his time. There were women among his disciples and friends. Jesus is portrayed in the Gospels as speaking with women in public, performing miracles on their behalf, and praising the wisdom of their responses. Women were the first witnesses of the resurrection.

In the church which sprung from the ministry of Jesus women were initiated by the same ritual of baptism as men were; women assumed active leadership roles; and women participated fully in the highest expression of the liturgical/sacramental life of the Church -- the Eucharist.

The ultimate indication that it was not shameful for a man to act like a woman was when Jesus washed the feet of his disciples at the last supper. (See chapter 13 of John's Gospel.) Washing of feet was a job for a slave. However, ordinary peasants could not afford a slave; so the job fell to the women of the house. By washing his disciples' feet, Jesus took on a distinctly female role. In effect Jesus shamelessly "reduced" himself to the level of a woman. In so doing, whether intentionally or not, he demolished the predominant cultural rationale of his time for the prohibition of male same sex activity.

Conclusions
Perhaps we are now in a position to answer some questions.

Are some forms of same sex sexual activity condemned by some of the biblical authors?

Yes.

Do any of the biblical authors condemn specifically homosexual activity?

No, because the concept of a homosexual orientation was unknown to the biblical authors. They never imagined affectionate genital sexual relations between consenting adults whose basic psycho-sexual orientation was towards persons of the same gender.

Does the rationale for the biblical condemnation extend to the Church in our day and age?

No. Already in the first century of the Christian era that rationale was discarded.

Can we say, then, that the Bible approves of sexual relations between consenting adult lesbian or gay couples?

No, for the same reasons as mentioned above. All one can say is that the biblical record does not rule out the possibility that the Church will develop a more positive evaluation of homosexual activity.

That is what appears to be going on right now as the Church adopts a more pastoral approach to GLBT persons. Doctrine does not develop in an instant or in a vacuum. The process can take centuries, but there is a discernible pattern. Pastoral ministry both takes its inspiration from the scriptures and returns to the scriptures with new questions. These new questions engender controversy and a deeper scrutiny of the biblical witness. Eventually, after much discussion and prayerful reflection a new consensus emerges.

John Henry Newman liked to quote the ancient maxim: "Securus iudicat orbis terrarum." "A tranquil world is the final judge." Once the dust settles it is easier to see where the road leads. Right now, with regard to the moral evaluation of homosexual activity, the world of the universal Church is anything but tranquil. Hence, the critical importance of intra- church dialog on issues raised by ministry to GLBT Catholics.

In the meantime, the witness of GLBT Catholics performs a crucial service to the whole Church. If we will only listen, lesbians and gay men can teach us a great deal about sexuality, just as divorced people can help us understand marriage, and poor people can lead us to a better grasp of economic ethics.

God willing, the time will come when GLBT persons will enjoy the same full equality in the Church that women and racial "minorities" aspire to. Until that time, none of us is equal, the promise of baptism is not fulfilled, and Paul's vision of the Church remains a project under construction.

"As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for you are one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3.27-28)

Return to Top