Let’s deal with Old Testament considerations first. "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" (Leviticus 20:13, see also Lev 18:22). These prohibitions are found among sections of Leviticus that deal with offenses and their punishments. Since the Law of Moses makes no distinction between morality and legality, these offenses are both criminal and moral offenses. The question for Christians is this: does the unqualified condemnation of homosexual acts found in Leviticus set the moral standard for Christians? The mere fact that such acts are condemned in Leviticus is not sufficient reason for Christians to condemn them. A quick reading of Leviticus and other law books of the Old Testament reveals that many acts that were legally and morally condemned therein are not condemned by Christians today. Leviticus 20:18, for example, says that if a husband has sexual intercourse with his wife during her menstrual period, the two of them "shall be cut off from among their people." If a man fights another and his wife tries to rescue him by seizing his opponent’s private parts, her hand is to be cut off (Deuteronomy 25:11,12). Among other things prohibited by the Law of Moses are eating meat from animals that have not been completely bled (Lev 19:26), eating pork and meat from other "unclean" animals (Lev 11), taking interest on money loaned to a fellow Israelite (Exodus 22:25, Lev 25:37), selling one’s family’s farm land in perpetuity (Lev 25:23), reaping all the produce from one’s fields (Lev 19:9,10), and sowing one’s fields with two kinds of seed (Lev 19:19).These and other kinds of moral prohibitions can be found in the Law of Moses that Christians do not accept as applying to themselves. Furthermore, the Law of Moses permits actions and customs that Christians view as immoral, such as slavery and polygamy.

The Law of Moses reflects a standard of morality that was applicable for its time and place but by no means can claim universal and perpetual validity. The only part of the Law that the Bible presents God as having directly written are the ten commandments (Deut 10:4). These ten commandments have also been accepted by Christians, but none of the ten mentions homosexual acts.

The moral standards of the New Testament no less than those of the Old Testament reflect a particular time and place. The New Testament permits Christians to enslave other Christians (Ephesians 6:5-9; Philemon). The New Testament teaches that husbands have authority over their wives (Eph 5:22) and that women are not to speak in church but be subordinate to the men (1 Corinthians 14:34). Today all Christians regard slavery as immoral and most Christians would regard discrimination against women as immoral. It is not sufficient in determining the moral status of homosexual relations simply to quote the New Testament.

One passage that is often quoted is from Romans, in which Paul writes: "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error" (Rm 1:26,27).

Here Paul is writing about heterosexual men who chose homosexual relationships over their natural inclination for women. They "gave up natural relations with women." Nowhere in the Bible, in either Old or New Testaments, does there appear to be any awareness that some men and women may be born with a predisposition exclusively to find members of their own sex sexually attractive. As we learn more and more about homosexuality, we are beginning to understand that homosexuals come by this trait as a result of genetic factors, hormonal factors in utero, or factors in their early childhood development. For them homosexuality is not a choice but their lot in life.

Given that the Biblical authors see homosexuality as a choice rather than a condition, their teaching does not cover the situation of people who are homosexual through no choice of their own. It is up to us, who have a better understanding of homosexuality, to develop a moral doctrine that bases itself on universal principles and insights of Christian morality.

Knowing the weakness of the argument from Scripture, traditional Catholic moral theology has tried to support its condemnation of homosexual acts by appealing to moral natural law. This view sees in heterosexuality a pattern of relationship that is universal in the world of nature and in all human societies. However, science has shown that there will always be a certain percentage of people who are inherently homosexual. And anthropological and historical studies show that every society includes homosexuals. Thus, it seems that, rather than condemning homosexuality, natural moral law approves of it as a constituent in human society.

The key question that we must ask is whether a homosexual relationship can be a means of spiritual and personal growth for its partners? We know that heterosexual marriage can be such a means. So it makes sense to ask what elements of a heterosexual marriage bring about spiritual and personal growth for the spouses, and then ask whether similar elements might not also be present in a homosexual relationship. 

All happy marriages are built on a deep personal love of the spouses for one another. As I defined it in a previous article, love is simply the choice to do what one judges to be for the good of another. In marriage this love is articulated in the marriage vows, which give examples of ways in which the spouses will seek to do good to each other: by being companions in sickness and health, in good and bad times, and having each other as exclusive sexual partners, until death. These are but examples of the general commitment to seek the other’s good.

If the spouses love one another over the course of their marriage, they will without question grow spiritually and personally. If they have children, then their commitment to love one another will involve cooperation in the raising of the children and will require them also to love their children. Inability to have children in no way will prevent them from loving each other or inhibit their spiritual or personal growth.

There is no reason to think that a homosexual couple who make a life-long commitment to one another that is similar to the commitment of a married couple (apart from the procreation of children) cannot also experience spiritual and personal growth in their relationship.

I will not say that what a homosexual couple experiences parallels what a heterosexual couple experiences in every respect. The physical contrast of male and female bodies, which becomes an element of wonder and delight in heterosexual love, obviously cannot be duplicated in a homosexual relationship. In that sense one might want to argue that the homosexual partnership lacks one element of richness that can be found in a marriage. On the other hand, if a homosexual couple wished to claim that their bodily similarity added a unique and wonderful dimension to their partnership, heterosexuals are in no position to gainsay the claim.

Once we all finally accept that homosexual orientation is not a matter of choice, but a condition of life, and put away our fear that homosexuals, if not condemned and persecuted, will undermine marriage and good social order, we may finally begin to perceive that homosexuals have a special gift to offer. It is surely no accident that some of the mostcreative men and women in history have been homosexual. Homosexuals can enrich our perception of reality by sharing a point of view that differs from the conventional.

As we have learned to celebrate the equality of women, the day will come when we celebrate the full participation in society of our homosexual brothers and sisters, and support them in seeing their orientation, not as an affliction, but a gift to all of us.

This completes my five-part series on Sex and Faith.

Arthur Menu, Sidney, BC