Disordered?

By Walt Marston

Having read “Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination: Guidelines for Pastoral Care,” issued by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on November 14, 2006, I offer these reflections. I do not mean to disparage the good intentions of any church, but rather to encourage a reasoned dialogue in a spirit of love.

I have long suspected that the primary basis for differences in attitudes towards homosexuality rests on the concept of “natural order.” While I disagree with the Catholic bishops’ perception of natural order, this latest statement at least brings their arguments into clearer focus. In this document I can see the fundamental underpinnings of the Catholic Church’s teachings on human sexuality (and also how many evangelicals would see it).

I titled this essay “Disordered” because I think that is the fundamental issue. What is disordered and what is not? It can only be answered in relation to what is considered “ordered” or the natural order of things. I want to address several themes with which I take issue in the Bishops’ statement: natural order, God’s image, creation of life, chastity and public self-disclosures.

The statement starts well enough by emphasizing “the fundamental dignity possessed by each person as created by God.” It is only when it gets into “the place of sexuality in God’s plan” that I think it falls short of an adequate understanding of the “natural order” and “God’s plan.”

First of all, the repeated use of the terms “inclination” or “tendency” rather than “orientation” strongly implies that the bishops don’t believe there is such a thing as a natural homosexual orientation, at least in a biological sense. This runs counter to the preponderance of scientific evidence and experience which indicates that, while it is not known for certain what causes a person to be gay, it seems clear that it is rarely a choice that anyone makes.

Even more troubling is the view of homosexual expression as being all part of a narcissistic self-indulgence within the prevailing popular culture. On the first page of the document, they say that our society’s view of sexuality is “not in accord with God’s purpose and plan for human sexuality.” I certainly agree that the view of our society (fed by the media and corporate marketing) that sex is primarily for personal pleasure is not “of God.” Those of us who seek to be authentic integrated beings living in the love of God reject this materialistic, individualistic “inclination” of the popular culture. The bishops are mistaken, though, in thinking that homosexuality is just an “inclination” encouraged by the temptations of the popular culture and societal influences.

The document further states that because we are created in the image of God “the complementary sexuality of man and woman is a gift from God.” This certainly is a gift from God, but not the only one, not exclusive of other expressions of the unity of God’s love. The more complete image of God is that of a “whole” person, one who knows his true self in relation to God.

The concept of creating life is much too limited in the prevailing Catholic doctrine. Many married couples create life biologically, but have insufficient marital love to create life in the fuller sense that God intends. Also many married couples who cannot have children bring forth life in other ways. Likewise, many homosexual couples create an abundance of life in the full expression of God’s love, even though they are incapable of biological procreation.

The document states that “sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.” While there is some truth in this declaration, the error is in believing that gay unions cannot be procreative and unitive. Catholic doctrine places too much emphasis on biological procreation and not enough on marital love. It does not account for a higher spiritual understanding of procreation (bringing forth life) and unity in God.

Looking at Scripture, St. Paul’s references (and those of the Hebrew scriptures) to homosexual acts are referring to degrading practices of pederasty, abuse, prostitution etc and of idolatry, but not to loving, committed, life-affirming relationships in which gay couples do in fact worship the Creator, not the creature. The Bishops’ statement includes a call to chaste living. However, chaste can be defined as virtuous or faithful, and committed, loving, same-sex relationships can be and often are just as chaste as that of married couples.

I appreciate the admonition to show compassion to homosexuals within the church. However, this is greatly negated by the call for these persons to not publicly discuss this part of themselves. This is particularly troublesome with respect to persons who are homosexual, but also bodes ill for expression of individual conscience throughout the Catholic Church. It seems to contradict the “respectful dialogue” called for at the end of the document.

In the Concluding Remarks, the bishops say that “authentic dialogue . . . facilitates an ongoing, interior conversion for all parties truly engaged in the exchange.” This could be a wonderful capstone to the 26-page statement by the bishops but it only holds water if the bishops themselves are open to “ongoing, interior conversion.” I sincerely hope that they are.