|
The question of whether homosexuality is moral or a sin has become a matter of intense theological debate among Christians. Many sects have experienced deep divisions over the topic, most notably the Anglican Church upon the ordaination of Gene Robinson as the first openly gay Bishop in the world's second largest Christian sect.
Overview
Many Christian denominations hold that homosexual behavior is and always has been a sin. Most Christians would emphasise that they do not condemn people who experience homosexual temptation, but only for giving into it and indulging in homosexual behavior.
Many Christians in North America and Europe dissent from the traditional opprobrium of homosexuality. Among Protestants, the more fundamentalist view is generally strongest in the US and Africa, while American Catholics are typically more liberal than Catholics elsewhere.
Christian theologians who do not believe homosexuality to be a sin argue that the fundamentalists have misinterpreted the pertinent Bible passages or quoted them selectively. For example, they consider the original Hebrew in Leviticus to be ambiguous as to whether "male" means adult man or little boy. They also point out that Leviticus also condemns many other things that modern Christians do, including getting haircuts, eating shellfish, wearing fabrics made from two different fibers (e.g., wool/cotton blends), and planting two crops in a single field. (A humorous piece titled "An Open Letter to Dr. Laura," in which an anonymous writer thanks her for her stance against homosexuality and asks her how to kill people who get haircuts, has made the rounds on the Internet for several years. [1] (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&c2coff=1&q=leviticus+%22dr.+laura%22&btnG=Search)) Some apologists make a distinction between "moral" codes and "purity" (or "ritual") codes in Leviticus and say that the purity codes no longer apply but that the moral codes (including the prohibition against homosexuality) remain binding.
Jews hold the Bible actually makes no distinction between morality and purity, and that the rules were generated in such a way that following the purity laws would lead to ethical behavior. However, Christians do not believe that the purity code prohibitions apply to them because these codes have been superseded by the sacrifice of Jesus. On the other hand, Christians do believe that the moral codes still apply. Thus much of the debate centers on whether homosexuality falls within the category of a purity code or a moral code. Liberal Christians argue that since the prohibition against homosexuality appears in a list of purity codes, this prohibition is equally irrelevant to Christians. Traditional Christians, on the other hand, consider the Levitical condemnation of homosexuality to remain in force, because they believe it is reinforced elsewhere in the Bible, including the New Testament.
There is criticism of this stance within the ranks of Christians themselves. These critics point out that in the case of the Southern Baptist Convention for example, one of the most conservative denominations in the United States, the church was against abolition of slavery in the 19th century (that was the reason the SBC came into existence, in 1845), citing biblical support for slave ownership, and was against universal suffrage in the 20th century, citing biblical support for man's ascendancy over woman, and now in the 21st century it is against gay rights. All of these position are criticized as being based on a narrow interpretation of the Bible, obeying the letter while going against the spirit of the Christian teachings.
Biblical Passages Referenced in the Debate
(The NRSV (http://www.anova.org/sev/) translation is used throughout for academic consistency where possible)
Anti-acceptance
- Genesis 19 is discussed at Sodom and Gomorrah, and will not be quoted in full. (Argument: God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah for their homosexuality)
- : You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Argument: God condemns sexual relations between men)
- : If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Argument: God condemns sexual relations between man)
- -20: For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. 20 These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile. (Argument: Sexual relations outside wedlock are condemned since homosexuals are not married their actions are sinful)
- -27: For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in 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 their error. (Argument: Homosexual acts are unnatural)
- -10: Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. (Argument: Homosexuals are condemned to Hell)
Pro-acceptance
- : You shall not sleep the sleep of a woman with a man; it is Toebeh (The sin of Idol Worship). (Argument: Badly translated, the odd phrase refers to some orgiastic practice in pagan Temples, not homosexuality)
- : If a man lies with a male and sleeps the sleep of a woman, both of them have committed an abomination (Toebeh); they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Argument: Once again badly translated, Toebeh always refers to offering sacrifice in pagan Temples, not a sexual sin, which would be Zimmah)
- -19: These six things the LORD hates, Yes, seven are an abomination to Him: A proud look, A lying tongue, Hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that are swift in running to evil, A false witness who speaks lies, And one who sows discord among brethren. (Argument: homosexuality is notably missing)
- -4: When David had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. Saul took him that day and would not let him return to his father's house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt. (Argument: Example of Love between two men)
- -50 Now this was the sin of Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. (Argument: Sodom was condemned for inhospitality, not homosexuality)
- -15 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. (Argument: Another reference indicating Sodom and Gomorrah were condemned for inhospitality)
- Do not judge, or you too will be judged.
- -13 the Story of the Centurion (Argument: Many see this as an example of bad translating. The term translated from the Greek as servant is Pais. Textural analysis shows that this word was often used to denote a mans gay lover. The text even goes so far as to use the term Slave or Servant (Gr. Doulos) in the same passage making the distinction even more clear) (this would have been a perfect time for Christ to condemn homosexuality, but rather he aids the Centurion thus allowing him to continue his homosexual relationship)
- -27: For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in 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 their error. (Argument: This passage refers to rejecting or acting against ones true nature. It refers mainly to practices committed in pagan temples where normally straight people would have orgies with others, often of the same sex)
- -10: Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. (Argument: Bad Translation, what it says are: Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, (rapists), thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers none of these qualifies as homosexuals)
- : Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins. (Argument: If there is Love then how can it be condemned)
Homosexuality and Choice in Christianity
Many Fundamentalists view homosexual behavior as a choice, making a distiction between homosexual behaviour and homosexual orientation. Some believe that homosexual orientation is also either a choice or the result of conditioning or upbringing, and that it is possible and desirable to make a transition to heterosexual orientation. For some fundamentalists this point is crucial to their position, believing that if homosexual orientation is not a choice then it should be accepted according to Galatians 3:28. They argue that this verse refers to attributes that are not freely chosen. This idea has found its expression in the Christian ex-gay movement, which publicizes cases of people who have "walked away from homosexuality".
Other Fundamentalists, on the other hand, have revised their view in recognition of the fact that gay teenagers are three times as likely to commit suicide as other teenagers, and that many gay teenagers come from Christian homes (see [2] (http://www.teach-ministries.org)). Many further recognize that so-called "ex-gay" persons are frequently of bisexual orientation, and that because of their erotic attraction to both genders, they are sometimes able to live in a heterosexual relationship.
Some fundamentalists feel it is essential to distinguish between behaviour and orientation. If there is free will, an important idea in Christian Theology, people do have a choice about how they behave, and this is quite different from whether or not people have a choice about their sexual orientation. As for most traditional Christians it is homosexual behaviour rather than orientation that is sinful, the questions that arise about homosexual orientation are separate, and less hotly debated. However, questions of whether homosexual people can change or be "healed" of their homosexuality do arise, and are important.
Of course one can argue that if the orientation is not a choice then it is part of God's design for humans and therefore the act of two men or women loving one another must also be part of that plan. It would be highly illogical to imagine God making homosexuals but then forbidding them from acting on their orientation. It would make no more sense for homosexual persons to choose to be heterosexual than it would be for heterosexual persons to choose to be homosexual. Both choices would be against their true nature, whether the orientation is "chosen" or a result of a combination of factors (discussed in more detail below). However in the Christian viewpoint the way people are born is not necessarily a perfect state. People can be born, or grow up with, strong urges to steal or lie compulsively, and these traits are not to be encouraged.
The idea of homosexual orientation being a free choice is rejected by most psychologists, as well as most other scientists and most homosexual people. The best evidence suggests that homosexual desires are present in some people in early childhood (see genetics and sexual orientation and causes of sexual orientation). They further argue that to deny people the right to express sexual love with another human being in the manner with which God endowed them is not an act of compassionate love. Many theologically liberal Christians agree and believe that God wishes for each person who has a desire for a consensual romantic and sexual relationship to fulfill it. There are even conservative Christians who have come to a new understanding that homosexual relationships that are loving and empowering are within God's design ([3] (http://www.glbtcoach.com/RobertaKreider)).
Based on Sigmund Freud's work, some notable psychologists, for example Robin Skinner in "Families and How to Survive Them", agree that homosexual desires are present in children, but argue that there is a developmental progression in children from homosexuality to heterosexuality, and that homosexuality in adults can be the result of developmental problems encountered in making this transition in childhood. Freud's "Letter to an American Mother" of 1935 contains this idea - he writes: "Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. " Freud went on to say that in some cases, this might be reversible "By asking me if I can help, you mean, I suppose, if I can abolish homosexuality and make normal heterosexuality take its place. The answer is, in a general way, we cannot promise to achieve it. In a certain number of cases we succeed in developing the blighted germs of heterosexual tendencies which are present in every homosexual, in the majority of cases it is no more possible. It is a question of the quality and the age of the individual. The result of treatment cannot be predicted."
Other traditionalists accept that homosexual orientation is not a choice, but argue that acting on that orientation is nevertheless sinful. In these cases, most Christians who condemn homosexual behaviour would not condemn homosexual orientation, but would advocate a life of celibacy for those who have that orientation. An anti-gay counterargument would be to point out that in Matthew 5:28, Jesus condemns not only the act of adultery but also adulterous sexual desire that is not acted upon. By extension, it could be argued that (for example) a man who looks lustfully at another man (i.e. has homosexual orientation) has already committed homosexual behavior in his heart. A gay-friendly response to the view that gays and lesbians are called to celibacy is that if it is God's design for us each to embody the spirit of God (as shown to each of us), that view does not empower the homosexual to experience God's design for intimate relationship to its fullest; it would be as senseless as saying that persons of heterosexual orientation who act upon their heterosexuality are sinful. Some progressives argue that in light of high divorce rates in Western countries, the world needs more relationships which are loving, respectful, and empowering, whether they are same gender or mixed gender relationships, and that persons who come to an acceptance of themselves, after having experienced spiritual rejection from family, friends and church, often evolve to a new level of compassion, forgiveness and love for others as well as themselves.
Further Debate
Liberal Christians also argue that Jesus explicitly condemned divorce—equating it with adultery in the Sermon on the Mount—but never explicitly forbade homosexuality; so they call it hypocritical to criticize homosexuality much more vocally than divorce. Also, rather than interpreting the term "adultery" in the Ten Commandments to mean any sex outside of marriage, they interpret it to mean sexual betrayal of a spouse, which would make the prohibition irrelevant to sex between unmarried persons, including unmarried homosexuals.
It is worth noting that the Leviticus passages only specifically mention male homosexual behavior. Paul's letter to the Romans is the only place in the Bible where female homosexual behavior is specifically mentioned. It should also be observed that in respect of sexual conduct, Leviticus passages tend to speak euphemistically, rather than offering explicit reference to physical postures and actions. For example, Lev 18:6-17 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=03&ch=018&l=6-17) repeats with each verse the phrase uncover the nakedness of, rather than explain exactly what is meant.
Modern readers often understand Leviticus as prohibiting homosexuality as such. But homosexuality, as a 19th-century concept denoting same-sex love, homoerotic feelings and sexual acts at the same time, is not a concern of Leviticus at all. The biblical expression "lie with someone" is a euphemism for the act of penetration. Therefore, non-penetrative sex was never considered to be unlawful by the Jewish law. "The Talmud understands the Torah’s interdiction in Leviticus 18 and 20 to be limited to male/male anal intercourse. Other male/male non-penetrative sexual practices, such as intercrural intercourse, are included in the category of masturbation—a category that is not condemned. To phrase the matter in contemporary language, the issue at stake in Leviticus and its later Talmudic interpretation is proper gender-role differentiation, not orientation or object choice. The text does not address the issue of homosexuality as that issue typically is framed in our conversations today" (Boyarin 337-39).[4] (http://www.wartburgseminary.edu/people/gwen/getty3.htm)
Controversy over biblical terminology
The term most often associated with homosexuals in the bible is arsenokoitai (greek: "αρσενοκοίτες" ). There is, however, a fairly strong argument over the ambiguity of its meaning. In textural analysis it is usual to find examples of the word in other extent texts of the same period and to confirm their definition by comparing its usage among such texts. It is possible that the first usage of the word comes from the apocryphal Sibylline Oracles (Oracula Sibyllina - 2 BCE) if, in fact, the text actually predates the letters of St. Paul; otherwise, St. Paul made up the word. The Oracula Sibyllina states that the "arsenokoitai" will come from the north and steal the children. Comparing it with St. Paul it is quite possible that the term was referring to kidnappers or child molesters. Had St. Paul wished to condemn homosexuality in general, it is more likely that he would have used already existing terminology. To imagine that he had no such terminology in his vocabulary is unfounded since Greek literature of the period abounds in homoerotic expressions. St. John Chrysostom , in the 4th century, does tend to use the term arsenokoitai to mean child molester, and St. John the faster, Patriarch of Constantinople (John IV, 582-595) makes the statement: "some men even commit the sin of arsenokoitai with their wives", which adds even more ambiguity to its supposed meaning. The translators of the King James Bible in 1600, had they believed this term to mean homosexual would have been inclined to translate the term as Invert. They chose rather to translate it as abusers of themselves with mankind, a frankly odd expression since mankind refers to women as well as men. All things considered, another possibility is that the term means "Rape". In some cultures, in order to obtain a mate, the man often kidnapped and raped his chosen bride. The elements that are present are both abduction and forced sexual encounter, so it may be rape that is most likely being condemned.
Furthermore, the Hebrew passage in Leviticus 18:22 would be literally translated "And with a man you should not lay down bedchambers of a woman; it is an abomination." Some controversy exists over the phrases "lay down" and "bedchambers", which can both be used sexually, but do not necessarily mean sexual things. In particular, the "lay down" terminology used in Leviticus 18:22 is not the same as the surrounding sexual condemnations in Leviticus 18:20 and Leviticus 18:23, leading some to think that "lay down" refers to the generic act of sleep rather than the specific act of sexual intercourse. Also, the term "Abomination" in this case is translated from the hebrew word "Toebeh" which is always used in scripture in context with the worship of pagan gods such as Baal, not to refer to sexual sins. So, it is likely that what is being described in Leviticus is some form of ritualistic sexual encounter that took place in pagan temples (i.e. Orgies).
Positions of specific denominations
Adventism
The Seventh-day Adventist Church is opposed to homosexual practices and relationships on the grounds that "sexual intimacy belongs only within the marital relationship of a man and a woman." It believes the Bible consistently affirms the pattern of heteromonogamy, and all sexual relations outside the scope of spousal intimacy are contrary to God's original plan.[5] (http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main_stat46.html)
Anglicanism
The Anglican Communion, which includes the Episcopal Church, has been divided on this issue; see Anglican views of homosexuality.
Baptists
The Southern Baptist Convention, the entity that represents the largest Protestant body known commonly as the Southern Baptist Churches, considers homosexual behavior to be sinful. Relations outside lawful marriage are also considered deviant. The general consensus is that homosexuals can in fact choose chastity and eventually recover their heterosexual preference. Southern Baptist clergy generally do not accept or participate in same-sex unions. To this date this denomination has never appointed a minister whom they knew to be homosexual. For more information see their position statement (http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/positionstatements.asp).
On the other hand, there are a number of churches, particularly in the American Baptist Churches in the USA and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, that have more liberal views. The Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists (http://www.wabaptists.org/), a small group of some 50 churches and organizations, is committed to the full inclusion of homosexuals in their churches.
Eastern Orthodox Christianity
- A more in depth treatment is available at Eastern Orthodox view of sin.
The Eastern Orthodox Church holds the opinion that sexuality, as we understand it, is part of the fallen world only. Celibacy is the ideal path and monasticism, the highest calling. However, in order to give man another option it allows marriage under strict conditions. These conditions do not currently include homosexuality. Traditionally the church has adopted a non-legalistic view of sin (see above), however some members of the church have assumed an active role in encouraging negative social stereotypes against gay individuals and several prominent members of the clergy have made statements condemning homosexuality. The leader of the Church of Greece, archbishop Christodoulos of Athens has described gay people as "handicaps". Other jurisdictions, such as the Orthodox Church in America have taken a more tolerant approach.[6] (http://www.oca.org/pages/ocaadmin/documents/all-american-council/10-miami-1992/synodal-affirmations.html#homosexuality)
Jehovah's Witnesses
Jehovah's Witnesses consider homosexual activity to be sinful, but recognize that some persons may be prone to homosexuality. Such ones are encouraged not to act upon their homosexual feelings. While condemning homosexual behavior, they encourage their members not to hate homosexuals. Their literature has stated: "Christians do not make homosexuals, or anyone else, the target of ill will, ridicule, or harassment. True Christians view their fellow humans as potential disciples of Christ, treating them in a respectful and dignified manner."
Lutheranism
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the largest Lutheran church body in the United States, is currently evaluating its policy on the ordination of homosexuals and a final report is expected at the 2005 Churchwide Assembly. Current policy states that persons who are homosexual in their self-understanding are allowed to be ordained, but must maintain a lifestyle abstinent of sexual relations. Outside of ordination, policy states that GLBT individuals are welcome and encouraged to become members and participate in the life of the congregation. ELCA congregations that embrace GLBT are called Reconciling in Christ congregations. The group Lutherans Concerned supports the inclusion of GLBT members in Lutheran churches in the ELCA and ELCIC. All other Lutheran churches in the United States oppose ordination and marriage of homosexuals.
Methodism
The United Methodist Church officially considers "the practice of homosexuality (to be) incompatible with Christian teaching" and states that "self-avowed practicing homosexuals" cannot be ordained as ministers. Some local congregations, especially members of the Reconciling Ministries Network (http://www.rmnetwork.org/), have defied the church leadership on this issue and have fought the policy in church courts. In 1987, a Methodist church court in New Hampshire defrocked Methodist minister Rose Mary Denman for being openly gay. In March 2004, a church court in Washington state acquitted minister Karen Dammann, who lived with a same-sex partner, based on an ambiguity in church law. That ambiguity was then eliminated by the Methodist supreme court, and in December 2004 a church court in Pennsylvania defrocked minister Irene Elizabeth Stroud, who lives with a same-sex partner, voting to convict by a seven-to-six majority.
Politically, the Methodist church has supported civil rights for gays, although it is unclear whether that support extends to same-sex marriage.
Metropolitan Community Church
The Metropolitan Community Church is a Protestant denomination with churches throughout the United States with a large gay membership. Acceptance of homosexuality is an important part of its theology.
Attacks on Metropolitan Community Churches
Because of the Church's views on homosexuality and its large membership of lesbians and gay men, it has been subject to bombings, desecrations, vandalism, threats, and arson. Seven percent of its congregations since its founding in 1968 have been targeted.
A partial list of major attacks on Metropolitan Community Church:
- Sacramento, California: arson; $600,000 in damages
- New Orleans, Louisiana: arsonists set fire to the church murdering 30 members including the pastor
- Los Angeles, California: arson against "Mother Church", the headquarters; $90,000 damages.
- San Francisco, California: facility set afire; $100,000 in damages. Threats to the pastor's life were scrawled on the church door.
- Texas: A congregation in Texas was victimized by a hate campaign of threats by the Ku Klux Klan
- St. Petersburg, Florida: arson against church facility; $34,000 in damages.
- Santa Monica, California: Received a hate-filled telephone threat. Followed up with a fire; $20,000 in damages
- Richmond, Virginia: Church's stained glass windows smashed by vandals
- Bradenton, Florida: Repeatedly desecrated by spray-painted swastikas.
Mormonism
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church—Mormons) considers homosexual behavior to be sinful. Homosexual desire itself (if not acted upon) is not viewed as sinful and is sometimes referred to as same-sex attraction rather than homosexuality. The church has actively opposed efforts to legalize same-sex marriage, although it has not taken any formal position on other political matters affecting legal rights for gays. The church also condemns persecution of homosexuals, and encourages people to instead treat homosexuals as neighbors in accordance to Jesus's teachings of neighborly love, whatever the actions they choose. However, church doctrine does hold that heterosexual marriage is required for entry into the most desirable forms of afterlife.
Presbyterianism
The Presbyterian Church (USA), the largest U.S. Presbyterian body, is sharply divided over the issue of homosexuality. Although gays are welcome to become members of the church, denominational policy prohibits non-celibate homosexuals (or unmarried people who are sexually active) from serving as ministers or on key church boards. After rancorous debate, that policy was upheld in a vote of presbyteries in 2002. It is uncertain how those on the losing side will react; some observers believe that congregations could break away from the denomination over that issue.
In New Zealand the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand has debated homosexuality for many years. In 1985 its General Assembly declared "Homosexual acts are sinful." The most recent decision of the Assembly (2004) was as follows:
"That General Assembly now rule in accordance with the Supreme and Subordinate Standards of the church and with previous assembly decisions that this church may not accept for training, license, ordain or induct anyone involved in a sexual relationship outside of faithful marriage between a man and a woman
In relation to homosexuality, in the interests of natural justice, this ruling shall not prejudice anyone, who as at the date of this meeting, has been accepted for training, licensed ordained of inducted."
Many Presbyterians are active in the Association for Reconciling Christians and Congregations (http://www.arcc.org.nz/), an ecumenical groups that supports the full inclusion and particpation of all people in the Church, including homosexuals.
Quakerism
The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) is deeply divided on this issue. The more conservative Friends United Meeting and Friends Evangelical Church considers homosexuality sinful; but other Friends, such as those in the Friends General Conference, strongly support equal rights for homosexuals. See Quaker views of homosexuality.
Roman Catholicism
The modern Catholic Church considers homosexual behavior to be disordered and sinful, but has clearly stated that homosexual desire itself is not. On the one hand, "homosexual acts are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved." (Catechism of the Catholic Church para. 2357) On the other hand, "The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition." (ibid, para. 2358) (In the first edition of the Catechism in English, the phrase "they do not choose their homosexual condition" appeared. However, this was removed in the second edition to reflect corrections made to the official Latin text.) For homosexuals, in general, the Catholic Church offers the following counsel: "Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection." (ibid, para. 2359) It should be noted that the same call to the virtue of chastity applies to all persons. See Catechism of the Catholic Church Article 6 Section II: The Vocation to Chastity (http://www.nccbuscc.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art6.htm)
At the moment the Roman Catholic Church permits the ordination of gay priests, provided they (like their heterosexual counterparts) remain celibate. But some Catholic leaders have recently endorsed a policy of prohibiting homosexuals from being priests, even if they are celibate, in light of the sex abuse scandal that has scarred the reputation of the Church in recent decades.
Roman Catholics, in general, appear to have a more tolerant attitude toward homosexual persons than some other Christian traditions. A 2001 survery of 1,508 Roman Catholics by American political pollster John Zogby found that 61% agreed with the statement: "Homosexual behaviour is morally wrong." However, 83% of those surveyed agreed that it is also "immoral to discriminate against homosexuals."
Historian John Boswell argues that the early Roman Catholic Church occasionally accepted homosexual views, and that modern teaching is a departure from those traditions.
Unification Church
see Unification Church views of sexuality. (The Unification Church is not considered a Christian church by most other churches because of its strong orientation towards Sun Myung Moon as the Messiah.)
Unitarian Universalism
Unitarian Universalists do not believe homosexuality to be a sin. They ordain gay and lesbian ministers, and welcome gay people into their congregations both informally and formally. (The Unitarian Universalist Association itself has stated that it is no longer a part of Christianity, although many Unitarian Universalists are also Christian.)
United Church of Canada
 This congregation of the United Church of Canada has posted a statement affirming that they welcome people of all backgrounds, including gays and lesbians, as full members of the church. The United Church of Canada, the largest Protestant denomination in Canada, affirms that homosexuals are welcome in the church and the ministry. The resolution "A) That all persons, regardless of their sexual orientation, who profess Jesus Christ and obedience to Him, are welcome to be or become full member of the Church. B) All members of the Church are eligible to be considered for the Ordered Ministry." was passed in 1988. This was not done, however, without intense debate over what was termed "the issue"; some congregations chose to leave the church rather than support the resolution. The church campaigned starting in 1977 to have the federal government add sexual orientation to federal non-discrimination laws, which was accomplished in 1996. [7] (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_ucc.htm)
United Church of Christ
The United Church of Christ is a congregational denomination, and hence views on most controverial matters vary among congregations. A substantial minority of UCC congregations have adopted an "open and accepting" statement welcoming homosexuals to become members and participate in worship as equals. A few congregations have opposite views, and many have no official policy. In late 2004 the church produced a television commercial promoting its open acceptance policy that dramatized a church entrance where minorities and homosexuals were turned away; the church was unable to persuade any of the three major U.S. television networks to air the advertisement.
Uniting Church in Australia
The Uniting Church in Australia allows for the membership and ordination of homosexual people [8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniting_Church_in_Australia#Homosexual_Ordination). On July 17 2003 it clarified its 1982 position when the national Assembly meeting stated that people had interpreted the scriptures with integrity in coming to the view that a practicing homosexual person in a committed same sex relationship could be ordained as a minister. It also stated that people who had come to the opposite view had also interpreted the scriptures with integrity. When Presbyteries (regional councils) select candidates for ministry they may use either of these positions, however they cannot formally adopt either position as policy, but must take each person on a case by case basis. By explicitly stating the two positions, this decision fleshes out a 1982 Assembly Standing Committee decision which did not ban people with a homosexual orientation from membership. After emotional debate, the 1997 Assembly did not reach a decision, and the 2000 Assembly decided not to discuss homosexuality.
Related topics
Bibliography
- Bates, Stephen (2004). A Church at War: Anglicans and Homosexuality. I.B. Tauris (http://www.ibtauris.com). ISBN 1850434808.
- Boswell, John (1980). Christianity, social tolerance, and homosexuality: Gay people in Western Europe from the beginning of the Christian era to the fourteenth century. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226067106
- Harvey, John F., O.S.F.S. (1996). The Truth about Homosexuality: The Cry of the Faithful, introduction by Benedict J. Groeschel, C.F.R.. Ignatius Press (http://www.ignatius.com). ISBN 0898705835.
External links
|
