The misunderstanding of the homosexual

Homosexuality has always been a moot topic. The Sexual Person by Salzman
and Lawler offers a rather unconventional definition of homosexuality in contrast to
the definition of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) while offering
arguments against the Church rationale against homosexuality.
Traditional views on homosexuality stem from sacred scriptures, which in itself
are a solid and clear foundation. However, Catholic teachings on homosexual acts
arent as unambiguous. The reason for this will be delved into in the latter parts of
the paper, but three questions must be raised to address the distinction between the
Bible and Catholic teachings on homosexual acts. Firstly, does the bible have a say
on the contemporary view of homosexuality? Secondly, if the bible does have a say,
what is it telling us and what is the meaning of said saying? Thirdly, can the bible
clarify the contemporary Christian discussion regarding homosexuality?
The first question delves into the definition of homosexuality. In a modern
view, homosexual orientation is a condition of psycho-sexual nature that is attracted
to the same sex. Thus, homosexuality is a way of being or a lifestyle, then through
this being, homosexuals behave in a homosexual manner; the former precedes the
latter. In contrast, bible and Christian tradition never viewed homosexuality as a
condition. The Bible condemned homosexual behavior as a perversion of the
heterosexual condition, since the common mindset at the time was that everyone
was heterosexual. However, this isnt the case as homosexuality is a condition that is
opposite to the heterosexual condition. Thus, homosexuals did not choose this
condition, so they cannot be condemned for a condition they didnt even choose.
What then does the Bible say about homosexual behavior? Leading up to the next
question, we must understand the context of the times.

Interpreting the Bible is fairly difficult, especially on issues such as

homosexuality, as they must be viewed in the context of the ancient times. In the
Bible, the most pervasive stand on homosexuality was the story of Sodom. In this
story, the destruction of Sodom was caused by male homosexual behaviors, but if
we see the context of the situation, we notice that the sin was regarding the
inhospitality of the men of Sodom to Lots guests. Since Lot lived in Sodom, even the
other heterosexual men of Sodom were subject to the law of hospitality, but they
ignored it and was urged to commit inhospitality via the violent homosexual rape.
This interpretation can be supported by the lack of mentioning of homosexual
behavior as a crime whenever Sodom is mentioned. Furthermore, this is further
supported by Jesus himself when he mentions in the book of Matthew that hospitality
is a basis of salvation or damnation.
If hospitality was the main issue of Sodom, what about the Holiness Code in
Leviticus? In Leviticus it says, You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an
abomination. However, we can point out that this prohibits only male homosexual
behavior and regards lesbian acts as not an abomination. Additionally, the word
you in Hebrew was explicitly used only for males. Why is this the case? There are
two points that should be made. First, the Hebrews thought that the male carried the
seed while the female only provided the ground, thus the male carried life. To spill
said seed is tantamount to murder which is an abomination. In homosexual acts, the
seed is always spilled as its eventual result is not fertilization, thus leading to the
conclusion that homosexual acts were an abomination. The second point is that
honor was exclusively an inherent male privilege. However, in homosexual acts, men
become passive as similar to a female, which lacks honor. Thus, homosexual acts

were seen as dishonorable, because the male plays the part of a non-honorable
entity: the female.
For Christians, the New Testament supplanted the Old Testament, thus let us
take note of chapter 1 of Pauls letter to the Romans. Paul accuses Gentiles of
idolatry, as they do not honor God. Since Gentiles were idolaters, God gave them
lust as a consequence, which are the dishonorable acts of homosexual behaviors.
Thus, in this context, we see that idolatry was the issue while homosexual acts of
heterosexuals was a punishment. Paul wrote this, because he thought that males
and females were all heterosexuals, thus, homosexual acts were unnatural, thus
immoral. Also, homosexual acts, similar to the context of the Old Testament, were
dishonorable because the male will temporarily attain the status of the woman,
declining any form of masculinity and accepts feminine behavior, thus becoming
dishonorable by becoming a woman.
Paul wrote this because he knew only of the situation of his time, disregarding
homosexuality as a condition. Now, this leads to our last question: since the Bible
has been written on the basis of its context, can it clarify the contemporary Christian
dialogue of homosexuality?
Bernard Lonergan observed the difference between a classicist and empirical
notion of culture. The classicist way was static, universal and permanent. On the
other hand, the empirical understanding was dynamic. These notions translates into
theology. The classicist mode would see that the moral norms coming from the
Magisterium as definitive and that the sexual norms from then would still be
applicable today. The empirical mode, however, repels passive acceptance of moral
norms and instead evaluates these norms in light of the current sociohistorical
situation. This understanding also acknowledges that medieval writers cannot be the

exclusive basis for the contemporary moral judgement about sexuality. Christians
would then have to base their moral judgements on bases other than the Bible; these
would include Magisterial teaching and the empirical sciences connected to the
actual human experience.
The Magisterial teaching on homosexuality is that homosexual acts are
intrinsically disordered based on three arguments. First, it asserts that these acts are
contrary to the natural law. The second justification argues that homosexual acts
close the sexual act to the gift of life. The last reason would be that homosexual
unions do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.
However, these claims do not come without weaknesses.
Every human being has a sexual orientation by nature. The Magisterium
presents this orientation as a deep-seated dimension of ones personality and that
there can only be true promotion of mans dignity if the essential order of this nature
is followed. Aquinas asserts that natural law varies according to circumstances. This
leads to the idea that the nature that we recognize is a social construct and is a
result of our interpretation. Therefore, homosexuals sexual acts that are loving and
are performed in accordance with holistic complementarity are natural for
homosexuals since since they are by nature homosexual. Consequently,
heterosexual acts would be unnatural and immoral for them. This view of the natural
law contests the first argument.
The procreative argument disagrees with homosexual acts on the account
that it disregards the gift of life. It is to be noted that potentially reproductive and
permanently or temporarily non-reproductive heterosexual acts are different types of
acts; hetero-genital complementarity is the one thing that distinguishes nonreproductive heterosexual acts for homosexual ones.

The love and mutual self-giving that homosexual couples experience through
their homosexual acts is in line with the Christian understanding of sexual acts. This
goes against the the third argument of complementarity and presents a dichotomy
between the view of the church and the reality that homosexuals face. There are
scientific studies that claim that there is not much difference between homosexual
and heterosexual parenting; this is contrary to the teachings of the Magisterium. The
Child Welfare League of America recommends that sexual orientation and the
capacity to raise a child should be held as separate issues.
Sociological data on views on homosexuality does not define the teachings of
the church and the idealizations the community holds. Rather, these statistics exhibit
the stance Christians take on the morality of homosexual acts and the faith of the
contemporary church.
The more accurate moral assessment of homosexual acts boils down to
experience and sociohistorical context. Experience is foundational in this
assessment; this much is clear in the sociological studies mentioned since it puts
forth the reality of the homosexuals today. In looking at the scriptural interpretation of
the immorality of homosexual acts, it is also evident that that these traditional views
lack legitimacy given its disconnect with the present context. Evolving tradition leans
on the dynamic empirical mode of theology.
Salzman and Lawlers complementarity argument asks the question of
whether or not homosexual acts will ever be capable of being truly human on the
level of personal and sexual complementarity. The argument arises due to the fact
that homosexual acts and relationships go against the intended purposes of sexual
acts and relationships which are procreation and unification. (Mattison) The latter of
the two may actually still be fulfilled in the performance of homosexual acts since in

doing so, the partners are still physically and emotionally unified. However, the same
cannot be said about the former since procreation will never be biologically possible
between persons of similar sexes. Homosexual relationships then must be morally
wrong if we were to judge it on the basis of traditional Catholic theology.
In order to partly answer the question intended by the argument, we examine
the testimonies of homosexual couples who are in committed relationships. The
couples mentioned in the text stated that they do, in fact, experience affective and
communion complementarity in and through their homosexual acts. (Salzman and
Lawler, 2008) Meanwhile, in a 2013 study on 4994 participants published by the
Open University in the UK, the researchers found that LGBQ participants are more
generally positive about and happier with the quality of their relationship and the
relationship which they have with their partner. They also found that Heterosexual
participants are the group least likely to be there for each other, to make couple
time, to pursue shared interests, to say I love you and to talk openly to one
another. (Gabb, Klett-Davies, Fink, and Thomae, 2013) The study concludes that
gay couples are more likely to be happy and positive about their relationship.
Homosexual acts and relationships are able to nourish a persons well-being, making
him/her feel fulfilled. The basis of analysis of a relationship should no longer be
through the physical genital sex of the partners but through the love and friendship
that blossom from the relationship. It is more appropriate to judge homosexual
relationships on the basis of how they are able to positively affect a person rather
than mere basic human anatomy. Just because the physical bodies of the partners
do not complement each other in the standard biological sense does not imply that
the partners are unable to share a meaningful relationship with each other.

Salzman and Lawler counteract the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faiths (CDF) claims that same-sex parenting is detrimental to the well-beings of the
children involved. Scientific data they presented actually show that homosexual
parents have the same potentiality of flourishing as that of heterosexual ones since
studies have shown homosexual parents to be empathetic, nurturing, and tolerant
than heterosexual ones. (Salzman and Lawler, 2008) True to this claim, Abbie
Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University in Massachusetts conducted a research
in 2007 on gay and lesbian parents and found that Gay parents tend to be more
motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they
chose to be parents That translates to greater commitment on average and more
involvement. 28 out of the 46 adults with at least one gay parent that she
interviewed said that they felt more open-minded and empathetic than people not
raised in their situation. (Goldberg and Allen, 2007) Not only is same-sex parenting
not detrimental to the children involved, but it is actually very beneficial to them. The
CDFs claim therefore may be viewed as a wrong and invalid one.
The claim that complementarity is not an appropriate tool to use to judge a
homosexual relationship is rightly so. To say that homosexual acts do not proceed
from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity is, in fact, untrue because a
homosexual relationship is much more than physical sexual anatomy. It is an
empirical collection of positive effects on not only the persons in the relationship but
also on the society that they are a part of. The lack of the literal procreative
possibility is also not a hindrance into creating a fulfilling and loving relationship and
several studies are actually able to support this. Complementarity, therefore, is not a
prerequisite to a fulfilling relationship.

The second critique we have decided to validate is the procreation argument.

In the chapter, the book argues that if a homosexual act explores openness to the
transmission of life in metaphorical terms, it will have the same significance as
heterosexual act in the sense of having the meaning of an embodied interpersonal
union. The entire argument itself is fairly short, thus there is still much to be said
regarding this argument.
There has been a shift in the thinking of the homosexual nature. As said in the
book, the context of writers such as Paul viewed everyone to be heterosexual, thus
resulting into an unnatural view on homosexuality. However, the advent of modern
psychology has a contrary opinion on this. It is now commonly understood in the
scientific field that there is a homosexual orientation, thus, the orientation itself is not
a sin as it is not acted upon. (Fox, 1995) However, what happens when it is acted
upon?
The older Catholic doctrine regarding sexual morality requires procreation as
the main or even only intent of any sexual act. (McNeill, 1976) As such, any kind of
homosexual act was condemned, because any homosexual act will never lead to
procreation. However, over time, the Church softened its stance and permitted for a
secondary intent: mutual love and the fulfillment of marriage partners. Thus, the
Church acknowledges the intimate connection to be a key role within a sexual act
between heterosexual relationships. The argument is seen in Gaudium et epes that
conjugal love in a marital relationship is expressed through marital acts like the
sexual act. (Pope Paul VI, 1965) This act not only cements the love, but also leads
the love into greater heights of love.
An interesting situation occurs when a heterosexual couple is infertile, yet
they still intend to enjoin in the sexual act. In the older tradition of Catholic doctrine, it

may be viewed as unnecessary even maybe sinful as it is not aligned with the
intention to procreate. Now, the Church still condemns any sexual act that doesnt
follow the procreation aspect and the conjugal love aspect. However, one must
discern the situation of the infertile heterosexual couple. Was it in their intention to
not be infertile? In most cases, it isnt, and many even dread accepting the fact they
may never have children. Furthermore, in Casti Connubii no. 59, it is said that any
couple with the intention of a marital love and life with the situation of infertility may
be aided with the second purpose of the sexual act: the intimate and personal
connection that bequests it. As long as the intention of the establishment of selfgiving and the sharing of the love is intact, the purpose of the sexual act is protected
(Pope Pius XI, 1930). The new understanding of the sexual act provides the
heterosexual couple the opportunity to participate in the sexual act with impunity as
long as these conditions are met and maintained at all times.
The homosexual couple draws similarity with an infertile heterosexual couple
as such that they also cannot procreate. Again, was this the intention of the
homosexual couple? Again, in most cases, it isnt and it is even a common practice
in Western nations for homosexual couples to adopt as they also want to raise a
family. Thus, as with the same case of the infertile heterosexual couple, the
homosexual couple wasnt able to be given a choice if they can be fertile or not. Yet,
even with these limitations, the homosexual couple commits the homosexual act,
because of their love for each other. With careful discernment, under the description
of Pope Pius XI, the homosexual couple, under a long-lasting and committed
relationship, achieved the purpose of the fostering of mutual love and sharing.
(McNeill, 102)

Furthermore, procreation has two aspects: the willingness to bear a child and
also the commitment to raising the child well. It is even said in the Catechism of the
Catholic Church in the Openness of Fertility, Parents are the principal and first
educators of their children. In this sense the fundamental task of marriage and family
is to be at the service of life. In a situation of a homosexual couple, their sexual act
is at a disadvantage in this context. However, if the homosexual couple has a
willingness to adopt an orphan? It serves greater purpose of not fulfilling the
procreation aspect, but also being a service to the state and the orphan for accepting
and raising a once alone child. It is even said in article that there is no single study
that suggests the homosexual couple as detriment to the child.
The homosexual has been misunderstood for thousands of years. But through
careful discernment, we realize that homosexuality isnt a perversion of the
heterosexual, but a whole different aspect on its own. As Catholics, we must respect
them as they are still human beings and are still capable of the love of us and the
love of God.

Bibliography
Gabb, J., Klett-Davies, M., Fink, J., & Thomae, M. (2013). Enduring Love?
Couple Relationships in the 21st Century (Master's thesis, Open University,
UK, 2013) (pp. 1-26). Open University Press. Retrieved November 11, 2016,
from
http://www.open.ac.uk/researchprojects/enduringlove/sites/www.open.ac.uk.re
searchprojects.enduringlove/files/files/final_survey_report_executive_findings.
pdf

Goldberg, A. E., & Allen, K. R. (2013). LGBT-parent families: Innovations in

research and implications for practice. New York: Springer.

Fox, Thomas C. Sexuality and Catholicism. New York: G. Braziller, 1995.

Print.
McNeill, John J. The Church and the Homosexual. Kansas City: Sheed
Andrews and McMeel, 1976. Print.

Pope Pius XI. "On Christian Marriage." CASTI CONNUBII. Vatican., n.d. Web.
11 Nov. 2016.

"Catechism of the Catholic Church." Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Vatican., n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2016.

PEER EVALUATION RESEARCH PAPER

TH 131 - Father Adolfo N. Dacanay, S.J

1. Chua, Kim - B (Section F 3:30pm-5:00pm, Tuesday and Thursday)

2. Enriquez, Elmo - B (Section F 3:30pm-5:00pm, Tuesday and
Thursday)
3. Espiritu, Bianca B+ (Section D 10:00am-11:00am, Monday,
Wednesday and Friday)
4. Jose, Christine - A (Section D 10:00am-11:00am, Monday,
Wednesday and Friday)
5. Sarte, Dan - A (Section F 3:30pm-5:00pm, Tuesday and Thursday)