Suzanne Holland. Bioethics. Editor: Bruce Jennings, 4th Edition, Volume 3, Macmillan Reference USA, 2014.
Homosexuality is one of the most contentious issues of contemporary times, although important scholarship has indicated that this contentiousness was not always so. This entry traces Western religious perspectives on homosexuality in Judaism, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism from Greco-Roman times to the twenty-first century, as well as summarizing Islam’s position on homosexuality.
Pre-Christian Greece and Rome
In the Greco-Roman ancient world, same-sex relationships were parts of the warp and woof of civilization, although there is no evidence that the word homosexuality existed in either Greek or Latin. Nevertheless, same-sex unions paralleling heterosexual marriage appear to have existed from ancient times through the Middle Ages (Boswell 1994). Craig A. Williams (2010) concurs and cites the example of the Roman emperor Nero’s multiple and publicly celebrated marriages to men. Both Jonathan Ned Katz (1990) and John Boswell (1980, 1994) argue that the term homosexuality is a nineteenth-century invention. Anne Zachary reports that “the term … was first coined as recently as 1869 by [Karl-Maria] Benkert” (2001, 489).
Scholars have long known that in ancient Greece adult male citizens engaged in pederasty (sex between men and boys), a practice that was a thoroughly acceptable part of Greek social and cultural anthropology. It was common for adult male citizens (not slaves) to initiate young boys into the rituals of manhood, which included sexual partnering. This practice was not followed in ancient Rome, although same-sex relationships did exist there.
In the Mediterranean world, social stratification was commonplace and included rigid demarcations between free men and slaves, as well as between adult males and adult free women. Bernadette J. Brooten (1996) has argued that attitudes toward same-sex relationships between women in the ancient world ought to be viewed within the context of attitudes toward women in general (see also Williams 2010 ). Because gender stratification undergirded the Mediterranean worldview, the ancients commonly regarded women as inferior to males, and they held derivative positions by virtue of their relationships to their husbands and fathers. Such a realization is important in understanding the place of same-sex relations within the Greco-Roman context.
In Greek and Roman anthropology, human nature was bifurcated—either active or passive. Under this view, males were thought to possess an active nature and women a passive nature. In terms of sexuality, the ancients recognized a fluidity that extended to any sexual expression of the male nature. Sexual expression would have taken place between “one active and one passive partner, regardless of gender” (Brooten 1996, 2). Some scholars point to social condemnation of the penetrated male because he was thought to violate the male “nature” by assuming a role fitted for women. The male penetrator did not appear to be similarly reviled, because he was acting in accord with man’s “active nature.”
Within the context of this worldview, sex between two women simply had no place in the social and gender hierarchy of the ancient world. Yet the ancients may have been less condemnatory of the partner who was penetrated as she was at least behaving according to nature (kata physin in Greek). Both Roman and Greek sources indicate a knowledge of female homoeroticism: frictrixlfricatrix and tribasltribades in Latin, for women who “rubbed” other women, as well as the Greek words tribas and Lesbia. Although ancient authors were certainly aware of female homoerotic relationships, it remains unclear whether this was regarded as a matter of particular concern because it was out of the bounds of the gender hierarchy on which the ancient world was based.
Was there an antihomosexual attitude in ancient Greece and Rome? The question is itself reflective of a twenty-first-century bias. It has been established that the term homosexuality was unknown to the ancients, and scholars such as Brooten (1996) argue that what the ancients condemned was the transgression of rigid gender hierarchies (the active/passive distinction), rather than homosexuality. Boswell (1994) argues that same-sex relationships were not condemned, although he did not apply a gender analysis to his research. R. T. France, an evangelical scholar, holds that “homosexual partnerships, whether pederastic or between adults, are accepted without comment, and described with appreciation, across a wide range of Greek literature” (1999, 248).
Some scholars argue that a bias against same-sex relations did exist, although most write chiefly of male-male relations. Roy Bowen Ward (1997), for example, argues that such a bias can be found in Plato (c. 428-347 B.C.E.; Timaeus and Laws), as well as in Philo, a first-century C.E. Hellenistic Jewish philosopher, and in the Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides, contemporary with Philo. The bias articulated in these sources, according to Ward, is one of antihedonism and pro-procreationism. In this view, homoeroticism in the Greco-Roman world was seen to be para physin (against nature) because it is hedonistic behavior that cannot lead to procreation.
Biblical Issues
By far the most contentious terrain in the battle over homosexuality and religion is that of the Bible; this is particularly so for Christians. Genesis 19:1-11 and Judges 19:22-30 each contain a reference to a similar story in which God punishes ancient Israel for its behavior. Exactly what kind of behavior is the hermeneutical issue for biblical scholars. Theological conservatives tend to interpret Genesis 19 and Judges 19 as stories of God’s condemnation for attempted homosexual rape, whereas more liberal exegetes have taken the position that the violations condemned are violations against the ancient code of hospitality so central in the biblical world. Feminist biblical scholars have pointed to the misogyny of Judges 19 as an interpretive key.
There are only two places in the Hebrew scriptures (Old Testament) that contain explicit prohibitions against what in the modern day is referred to as homosexuality, although the word itself is never mentioned in the Bible. Both are contained in the book of Leviticus, mentioned in the context of the codes of ritual purity by which Israel is to set itself apart from other people. The New Revised Standard Version (NSRV) of the Bible translates as follows: Leviticus 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination”; Leviticus 20:13, “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.”
Scholars debate both the meaning of word choices (what does it mean to “lie with a male as with a woman”? what does “abomination” mean?) and the exact nature of the historical or cultural context. Not surprisingly, evangelical and conservative Christian exegetes tend to interpret the passages to mean that God condemns acts of same-sex eroticism between men; a few biblical literalists use Leviticus 20:13 to argue for the death penalty for homosexuals today (see Westboro Baptist Church 2013). If the writer of Leviticus does intend to signal God’s condemnation of homosexual sex between men, what is the basis for the condemnation? Conservative exegetes argue that the “abomination” (toevah in Hebrew) in question is quite simply sodomy, or anal intercourse between two men—hence, the meaning of to “lie with a male as with a woman.” Lynne C. Boughton (1992) claims that toevah signifies something inherently wrong and contradictory to nature.
More liberal Christian exegetes make two kinds of hermeneutical claims. The first view is that the ritual codes of ancient Israel were written for a particular context and that few of these commands are observed today (Borg 1994). Indeed, few Christians observe other prohibitions found in Leviticus, such as having sex with a menstruating woman (18:19), eating certain foods (19:26), cutting beards (19:27), wearing clothes made from two kinds of fabrics (19:19), or tattooing (19:28). Marcus J. Borg (1994) maintains that Christians who set aside these laws must assume the burden of proof for following any one of them, including the proscription on homosexuality. Others who view the New Testament as superseding the Old Testament might claim that the New Testament already invalidates much of the Levitical ritual concerns, rendering them less authoritative for Christians.
A second view, characteristic of L. William Countryman (2007) and Bernadette J. Brooten (1996), holds that the concerns of Leviticus 18-20 are not those of ritual and morality but rather, as Brooten puts it, “holiness, impurity, defilement, shame and abomination” (288). On this view, the Levitical codes exist to secure the holiness of the people of Israel, a people bound to God. It is important to recognize the centrality of group welfare in ancient Israel—the writer’s concern is not for securing individual purity but the purity and survival of the whole people. This runs counter to the modern sense of individual liberties and rights. When seen from the perspective of group purity, many of the pieces of the Levitical codes that contemporary readers find objectionable (execution for adulterers, execution for perpetrators and victims of pederasty, and so on) can be understood as relevant to group survival and holiness: the offending violation and the violators must be cleansed from the midst of the community.
Similarly, Daniel A. Helminiak (1994) holds that the Levitical proscriptions are not against male homogenital relations (women are never mentioned) and must be seen within the context of ritual purity; the taboo (a translation of toevah) that concerns Leviticus is one of uncleanliness or defilement in a religious sense—but not in an ethical or moral sense. The chief concern of the writer is the purity of the people of Israel over and against the gentiles; all the purity violations in the holiness codes are cited as “abominations” or “taboo.”
Scholars generally agree that Paul relies on Leviticus in his proscriptions against same-sex expression, particularly in Romans 1:26-27 but also in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and again in 1 Timothy 1:10. The latter texts concern lists of behaviors to be avoided by Christians (lying, adultery, idolatry, and so on), and included among the lists is the Greek word arsenokoitai, which is generally translated as “men lying with men.” While this word has been translated as “homosexual,” it has also been variously translated as “sodomites” or “male prostitutes,” “homosexual perversion,” and even “abusers of themselves with mankind” (Borg 1994, 4; Helminiak 1994). Boswell (1980) argues that arsenokoitai refers to male prostitution and not homosexuality generally. Arsenokoitai also appears in the Septuagint Greek translation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Some scholars hold that it refers to the specific practice of pederasty in ancient Greece and that it is this practice, along with male prostitution, that is condemned by Paul, and not homosexuality per se (Scroggs 1983; Borg 1994; Ackerman 2000). Others disagree with this interpretation (e.g., Wright 1984; Furnish 2009).
First Corinthians 6:9 also contains the word malakoi, which refers to soft or weak persons, although Brooten translates this term as “men who assume a passive sexual role with other men” (1996, 260). This translation undergirds her argument that what was reviled by the ancients, including Paul, was the violation of the active/passive distinction on which society was based. Countryman (2007) and Boswell (1980) argue that malakoi does not refer to homosexuality at all.
Romans 1:26-27 is cited by most Protestant religious denominations, as well as the Roman Catholic Church, as the cornerstone of a variety of positions opposed to homosexual sexual expression. It merits quoting here: “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” (NSRV). Scholarly debate generally turns on the context of the passage: What is it that Paul is concerned to communicate to his audience? And, what is meant by the terms natural (kata physin) and unnatural (para physirn)?.
Does para physin mean contrary to nature in keeping with the Stoic insight on the right and natural order of things (Hays 1986, contra Boswell), or does it mean, as Boswell (1980) suggests, beyond nature, meaning extraordinary or peculiar, but not unnatural? Boswell’s claim is that the term was in some sense morally neutral for Paul, because he used it with respect to the salvation of the gentiles as well as to sex between men. Picking up from Boswell, Helminiak (1994) suggests that Paul meant surprising behavior, which is to say, “When people acted as was expected … they were acting ‘naturally.’ When people did something … out of character, they were acting ‘unnaturally’” (64). Thus, “exchanging natural intercourse for unnatural” would have indicated sex that was surprising and out of the ordinary, but not inherently wrong or disordered in the Stoic sense of “the laws of nature.”
Stoic philosophy did make use of the term para physin, and the Stoic philosophy of “natural law” was pervasive in the Roman Empire. Robin Scroggs (1993, 115), however, maintains that para physin was “a commonplace Greco-Roman attack on pederasty,” while Roy Bowen Ward (1997) sees in it echoes of the emphasis on the importance of procreation typical of the Hellenistic Jewish community (and Stoic thought) of which Paul was a part. In terms of the procreation concern, Helminiak (1994) believes it would have been inconsistent for Paul to have made a priority out of this issue because the early Christian community expected the imminent return of Jesus; thus, marriage and procreation were not their chief concerns.
Among the more persuasive arguments is that of Brooten (1996), who contends that para physin did mean “contrary to nature,” but that what is referred to as kata physin (“according to nature”) is the nonbiological active/passive distinction: any sex act had to have an active and a passive partner. Accordingly, sex between two women would certainly be thought of as shameful, unnatural, and impure because “natural” sex meant penetration, characterizing the active dimension of the male. “Impurity applied to gender thus means that people are not maintaining clear gender polarity and complementarity” (Brooten 1996, 235).
Similarly, for a man to have intercourse with a man, instead of a woman, would be a violation of the social order in which the “male nature” was believed to be active and penetrating. Boswell, by contrast, argues that to exchange natural for unnatural intercourse refers to heterosexuals engaging in homosexual sex, because Paul presumes that such persons are capable of “natural intercourse.” He further maintains that Paul is making a distinction between homosexual persons and homosexual acts and is really concerned only with the latter (Boswell 1980). Richard B. Hays (1986) disputes Boswell on this point, arguing that for Paul homoerotic expression does constitute a willful upending of the sexual differences that God intended for creation. Brooten adds that neither scholar takes a gendered analysis of Paul’s position and his cultural assumptions into account and that “gender ambiguity is also the best framework within which to view Paul’s understanding of unnatural relations in Romans I” (Brooten 1996, 252).
Homosexuality and Judaism
Rabbinic Judaism, which emphasizes the halachic or legal side of the Talmud, has been largely opposed to same-sex sexual expression between males. Such expression between women is not addressed in the Torah, although it was later condemned by the rabbis (e.g., Sifra 98 and Mishneh Torah Issurei Biah 21:8). Perhaps silence on same-sex eroticism between women in the biblical period of ancient Judaism reflects the patriarchal nature of the culture; one cannot really be certain. It is clear, however, that male homoeroticism was condemned as an “abomination” (toevah) in Leviticus 18:22 and punishable by death in Leviticus 20:13. The reasons for the condemnation have been debated both in the Talmud and by scholars up to the present.
In contemporary Judaism, Saul M. Olyan (1994), for example, argues that what the Torah actually prohibits in Leviticus is male anal intercourse and not other instances of male-male coupling (see also Boyarin 1995 ). (For contemporary explanations on the differing treatment of male and female homoeroticism in Jewish law, see the work of Rebecca Alpert [1997] and Rachel Biale [1984].) One of the debates in contemporary Judaism has been whether or not halacha is open to change on homosexuality in light of new realities, or whether its character is fixed. In one sense, within halachic Judaism it is apparent that homoerotic acts (though not necessarily inclinations) between men are to be regarded both as an abomination and as an aberration from the commonly held norm of heterosexual acts that ensure procreation and the promotion of family life—primary values in Judaism. David M. Feldman (1983), for instance, does not agree that the proscription in Leviticus has anything to do with procreation. He summarizes three possible reasons for the prohibition according to his reading of rabbinic sources: that male homosexuality cannot result in procreation, that such sexual activity will result in men leaving their wives and families, and that it constitutes “going astray” (toeh attah bah—a play on toevah) from the Creator’s design for creation.
Following the rabbis, Feldman regards homosexual acts as sinful, but he makes the distinction that “if the aberration is the result of ‘sickness,’ no guilt can attach to it; if it is advocated as an ‘alternative lifestyle,’ this then is consciously immoral and soberly sinful” (1983, 426); thus, volition plays a key part in the condemnation. Under this view, halacha and homosexuality are regarded as incompatible, and it is interesting to note that the rabbis apparently regarded male homosexuality and Judaism as an unlikely combination—that Jews could not really “be homosexual.” There is much discussion, from the Talmud to the Jewish philosopher Maimonides (1135-1204), on yichud, “being alone together.” Generally, proscriptions against yichud reflect concerns with heterosexual adultery so that the Talmud actually allows two men to be alone together and even to sleep under the same blanket. This might reflect the relative lack of attention paid to homosexuality as a reality in ancient Judaism, in contrast to the gentile communities in Greece and Rome.
Robert Kirschner (1998), opposing Feldman and J. David Bleich (1980), argues that halacha is capable of change on this matter, as it has been on many others (e.g., the debate over heresh [deaf-mute]), because the power of interpretation is a cornerstone of rabbinic tradition. Kirschner makes a case for Judaism taking into consideration scientific evidence about sexuality, including theories on the etiology of homosexuality. Contemporary science confirms, for example, what the rabbis did not think to be the case—that sexuality and its expression is variable, fluid, and not dichotomous; therefore, homosexuality can be seen “not as a perversion but, rather, in its multiple manifestations, a state of sexual being” (Kirschner 1998, 457).
Currently, the four branches of Judaism in the United States (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist) take a variety of positions on homosexuality. Orthodox Judaism considers itself largely settled on these questions, and it accepts the Levitical condemnation of male same-sex acts as an abomination. Some more liberal Orthodox Jews maintain a distinction between the act and the person (the sin and the sinner), regarding the homosexual Jew as sinning, but a Jew nonetheless. In 2010 Rabbi Nathaniel Helfgot prepared a statement calling for respect for gays within the Orthodox religion. It has since been signed by “dozens” of leading orthodox rabbis worldwide (Eagle 2010). In 1999 Steven Greenberg became the first Orthodox rabbi to “come out” as a homosexual Jew, a subject of great controversy in Orthodox Judaism. His 2004 book Wrestling with God and Men challenges conventional orthodox scriptural interpretation employing rabbinic scholarship.
In recent years, support networks of Orthodox homosexual Jews have emerged, even though Orthodoxy does not recognize homosexuality as an orientation or state of being. Examples of these networks include the Gay and Lesbian Yeshiva Day School Alumni Association, OrthoGays, and OrthoDykes, all of which have a presence on the Internet.
In 2000 the Rabbinical Council of America condemned the position taken by the Reform rabbis to affirm same-sex relationships in Jewish ritual. In 1999 the council publicly opposed the state of Vermont’s ruling legalizing same-sex civil unions, on the grounds that marriage is only between heterosexuals, and in 2011 it reaffirmed this policy.
In 1991 the Conservative movement in Judaism (both the Rabbinical Assembly and the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism) passed a resolution affirming its halachic commitment to heterosexual relationships, while simultaneously opposing civil restrictions on and expressions of hatred against gays and lesbians. The movement officially welcomes gay and lesbian persons at synagogue and encourages education among Jews about homosexuality. Starting in 1992, the official policy of the Conservative movement’s Committee on Jewish Law and Standards had been to prohibit the ordination of gay and lesbian rabbis, as well as to prohibit same-sex marriages or commitment ceremonies. That policy was under discussion at the beginning of the twenty-first century, and in 2006 the same committee gave permission for same-sex commitment ceremonies and the ordination of homosexuals within Conservative Judaism (Cooperman 2006). Conservative rabbis had been permitted to serve gay and lesbian congregations, but they were halachicly prohibited from officiating at commitment ceremonies, until the Jewish Theological Seminary’s Committee on Jewish Laws and Standards voted to endorse its rabbis performing same-sex marriages in 2012 (Human Rights Campaign 2012). In April 2012, joining the American branch, the Israeli Conservative movement approved the ordination of gay rabbis (Blumenfeld and Ettinger 2012). (For a helpful and balanced overview on homosexuality in Judaism, see Dorff 1998).
The Rabbinical Assembly of Conservative Judaism published an official rabbinical letter on human intimacy in which it stated, with reference to the Levitical codes, that some acts of sexual expression are abominations (cultic, oppressive, or promiscuous sex, whether by homosexuals or heterosexuals), but that monogamous, loving sex is sacred and should be sanctified, whether heterosexual or homosexual (see Dorff 1996). In 2006 the Rabbinical Assembly “accepted three teshuvot on gays and lesbians in the rabbinate that reflect the wide spectrum of views in the Conservative Movement on the halakhic issues related to sexual identity” (Rabbinical Assembly 2011). In 2011 the assembly wrote, “Despite our halakhic differences, we stand united in our opposition to discrimination against anyone based on sexual identity and in our commitment to make our synagogues and our community more welcoming and safe places for all” (Rabbinical Assembly 2011).
For the Reform movement and for Reconstructionist Judaism, homosexuality is almost a nonissue, in that the Union of American Hebrew Congregations (UAHC; since 2002 the Union for Reform Judaism, or URJ) voted in 1973 to accept full membership of a synagogue that had a specific outreach to homosexual Jews. In the 1980s the official seminary of Reform Judaism, Hebrew Union College, voted to accept gay or lesbian rabbinical students; the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College preceded He-brew Union in doing so. In 1993 UAHC adopted a resolution calling for full legal equality for gay and lesbian monogamous partnerships. In 1997 the UAHC reaffirmed its commitment to welcoming gays and lesbians into full participation in all aspects of Jewish life, and it officially resolved (1) to support efforts toward civil gay and lesbian marriages; (2) to urge Reform congregations to honor monogamous gay and lesbian partnerships; and (3) to support the Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR) in its study of the possibility of religious commitment ceremonies for gay and lesbian unions between Jews. In March 2000 the CCAR became the first major congregation of American clergy to give its clergy permission to perform gay and lesbian commitment ceremonies. Although the URJ and the CCAR have been very supportive of gay rights issues, and in 1993 the president of the UAHC, Rabbi Alexander Schindler, called for the Reform movement to support the right of gays and lesbians to adopt children, there is as yet no official position on the adoption of children by homosexuals.
Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism
Because Roman Catholicism and Christianity were synonymous until the Reformation, Christian attitudes toward homosexuality were, de facto, Roman Catholic attitudes, although popular attitudes were not necessarily synonymous with official Catholic teaching, as is true today. John Boswell (1994) contends that evidence from liturgical texts and cultural history indicates that Christians once accepted same-sex relationships. Moreover, he argues that a distinctive contribution of early Christianity was an emphasis on the celibate life as spiritually superior to the heterosexual married state; eroticism thus became suspect, and marriage was seen as a distraction from the important preparation of the Second Coming and at best a compromise with the material world. These attitudes held sway in the church for the first thousand years of its existence (Boswell 1994). Mary Rose D’Angelo (1990) shows how pairs of women missionaries in the New Testament can be seen as evidence of commitment both to the mission and to each other. Boswell, too, discusses the influence of “paired saints,” such as Perpetua and Felicity, Serge and Bacchus, and even Jesus and John, on ordinary Christians.
Christian thinkers from late antiquity to the high Middle Ages have had an influence on official Catholic teaching on homosexuality. Among these are Augustine of Hippo, John Chrysostom, Clement of Alexandria, and Thomas Aquinas. Saint Augustine (354-430) contributed heavily to the Catholic view that marriage was for procreation, monogamy, and fidelity, or as Augustine put it, fides, proles, and sacramentum (Boswell 1994; Augustine 2001). So influential was this view that traces of it are found in papal documents up through the twentieth century. Augustine was influenced by his membership in the Manichaean movement, which viewed the natural world as an inherent evil. Hence, one finds in Augustine an insistence on sex within marriage exclusively for the purpose of procreation—husbands were encouraged to make use of prostitutes if they had a need for nonprocreative sex (Augustine 2001). Boswell (1980) maintains that Augustine’s view of “nature” is to be understood in the sense of “out of the ordinary,” not the “normal” use of something. Thus, Augustine condemned same-sex eroticism because it was certainly not the “normal” use of sex with which he was familiar. Contra naturum meant that which did not conform to ordo, or the order of the world, the divine plan (see Augustine’s De ordine [1948]). In this view, conformity was the issue for Augustine, not “nature” itself. Part of the order of things, as explained by Bernadette J. Brooten (1996), is the maintenance of gender boundaries. Augustine was one of the Christian thinkers who, perhaps reflecting the culture around him, insisted on the male nature as superior to the female.
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-c. 215) argues against homosexuality in the Paedagogus, an instruction manual for Christian parents. Clement did espouse the procreation argument for moral intercourse, but his rationale against same-sex eroticism was grounded primarily in the Epistle of Barnabas’s view that such acts were “animalistic.” (The comparison to animals figured prominently in theological treatises up through Thomas Aquinas.) This popular first-century epistle (now part of the Catholic Apocrypha) equated the eating of certain animals in Leviticus (notably the hare, the hyena, and the weasel) with sexual sins. Although regarded as erroneous, the epistle’s influence is evident in Clement’s writing, which itself was influential in the early church. Clement is one of the few sources who explicitly opposed “woman-woman marriage,” believing it to be unnatural in that it flaunts God’s plan for woman as the receptacle of the male seed. Drawing on both Plato and Saint Paul, Clement held that same-sex relations were para physin.
John Chrysostom (c. 347-407), also known as John of Antioch, was another of the early Christian thinkers who was influenced by the Manichaeans, as well as by the Stoics, a combination of belief systems that “led him into the paradoxical position of condemning sexual pleasure … while at the same time denouncing homosexual acts for not providing pleasure: ‘Sins against nature … are more difficult and less rewarding, so much so that they cannot even claim to provide pleasure, since real pleasure is only in accordance with nature’” (Boswell 1980, 156). Chrysostom, also a product of Mediterranean misogynistic culture, was repulsed by the idea of a male taking on the role of a woman, and this transgression was part of his opposition to same-sex eroticism. Both Boswell and Brooten agree on this. Brooten (1996) notes that Chrysostom began to use the language of disease with respect to same-sex eroticism, adding this to the language of sin in early Christianity and ancient Judaism.
Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-1274), the influential Dominican scholar, argued that same-sex acts were to be regarded as sinful because they thwarted the “natural law,” as ordained by God. The thirteenth century is the period in which civil laws against homosexuals arose; antihomosexual rhetoric became vitriolic and remained so through the twentieth century. In this light, Boswell (1980) regarded Thomas as reflecting the popular attitudes of his time rather than responding to the substance of church tradition on this issue. It is important to recall that the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.), the Stoics, and the “natural law” discussions of the first centuries of Christian history heavily influenced Thomas. His articulation of what constitutes “nature” and “natural law,” particularly in his Summa theologica, has been given decisive weight in Roman Catholic moral theology up through the present day. Thomas devotes much of the Summa to considerations of “natural law”; one succinct definition is as follows: “It is clear that natural law is nothing other than the participation of rational creatures in eternal law” (cited in Boswell 1980, 324n75). Thomas held that reason is that which distinguishes what is natural to humans from what is natural to animals. Therefore, one might expect Thomas to argue that homosexual acts are contrary to reason—and in this sense, unnatural. But this was not the rationale that he employed.
In the Summa there are three places of commentary on same-sex eroticism (Ia.2ae.31.7; Ia.2ae.94.3 ad 2; 2a.2ae.154.11-12), although “only the last has received scholarly attention in the context of Scholastic attitudes towards homosexuality” (Boswell 1980, 323n68). In 2a.2ae.154.11-12, Thomas discusses “vices against nature,” which for him included heterosexual intercourse without intent to procreate, intercourse with animals, homosexual intercourse, and masturbation. These constitute the most sinful forms of lust, although Thomas does not here discuss what order of nature is violated by these sins; he does hold that all sins are unnatural because they are “against the order of reason, which must order all things according to their ends” (Summa 2a.2ae. 153.2 Resp. as cited in Boswell 1980, 234n75). Why then is homoeroticism particularly unnatural? One might expect Thomas to ground his opposition in the “spilling of seed” argument that had been popular (nature intended semen to find its end in the procreation of children), and indeed he did consider this rationale in his Summa contra gentiles. But he disposed of the argument after considering that nature fitted other body parts for uses to which they were not always put, and therefore, misusing a part of the body could not be the sin; the sin was rather to impede the propagation of the species, which itself is a good. If homosexual sex precludes procreation, he then might have applied the same argument to celibacy and to virginity, but he did not (Boswell 1890).
Nevertheless, Thomas considered that there were some things that might seem against human nature generally, although peculiar to certain individuals and, therefore, “natural” to those individuals as everything in nature was believed to be ordered by God to some good end. One might have a “defect” of nature, but that defect of nature could be quite “natural”; indeed, this was the way in which Thomas regarded females, as “defective” males. And in a footnote to history, Boswell writes, “It would seem that Saint Thomas would have been constrained to admit that homosexual acts were ‘appropriate’ to those whom he considered ‘naturally’ homosexual” (1980, 327n87; see also Summa Ia.2ae.94 ad 3). Perhaps reflecting the attitudes of his day, Thomas did not do so, as he also did not show why homosexual acts were immoral theologically, apart from being unnatural—neither is this point considered in official Catholic teaching on homosexuality.
The Roman Catholic Church has issued five key statements that are meant to instruct the faithful as to its official teaching on homosexuality:
- In December 1975 homosexuality is considered within the document “Declaration on Certain Problems of Sexual Ethics”;
- In October 1986 the Vatican issued a letter to bishops regarding “The Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons”;
- In July 1992 “Responding to Legislative Proposals on Discrimination against Homosexuals” was issued;
- In 1995 the Catechism of the Catholic Church was revised, containing three sections on homosexuality (paragraphs 2357, 2358, and 2359); and
- In 1997 the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a pastoral letter on homosexuality titled “Always Our Children.”
With remarkable consistency, the church has always held that homosexual acts are “disordered” and against nature. Thus, the church has never sanctioned such acts, although its documents on the matter do indicate a shift from a complete condemnation in the documents from 1975 and 1986 (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith 1986, 1999) to a more recent distinction between the act and the actor—or the sin and the sinner—in the documents from 1995 and 1997. (For an alternative claim by a contemporary Catholic moral theologian, see Farley 1983).
If the church is now making a distinction between homosexual acts, which it condemns as against the natural law, and homosexual persons, who deserve compassion, it does so because it believes that homosexuality is not chosen (Catholic Church 1995). Earlier, the church had distinguished between curable and incurable homosexuals, yet it counseled the faithful to instill hope “in them of one day overcoming their difficulties and their alienation from society” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith 1999, para. 8). It would seem that Pope John Paul II was aware of the scientific data about the origins of homosexuality and that his position in the Catechism accounted for some openness to science and social science. In rather nonjudgmental language, the Catechism observes: “Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms throughout the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained” (Catholic Church 1995, para. 2,357).
All this notwithstanding, the Roman Catholic Church does not condone homosexuality and recommends celibacy as the only acceptable form of sexual expression for homosexuals. Accordingly, it does not approve of civil unions or legal domestic partnerships; nor does it condone homosexual marriages or unions in its churches, nor the adoption of children by gay and lesbian persons. It should be noted, however, that there is a substantive gay-affirming movement within the Roman Catholic tradition known as Dignity. During the 1970s, 1980s, and into the mid-1990s, a Catholic priest, Robert Nugent, and a Catholic nun, Jeannine Gramick, ran New Ways Ministry, a ministry to gay and lesbian Catholics. In 2000 they were ordered by the Vatican to cease teaching publicly or face expulsion from their respective orders. In 2003 Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, reaffirmed the church’s official opposition to homosexuality in a Vatican document declaring its firm opposition to the legal recognition of same-sex marriage and reminding Catholics, especially Catholic politicians, of their obligation to oppose such measures (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith 2003). Therefore, it was not surprising that in 2005 Pope Benedict XVI sanctioned a Vatican document titled “Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with Regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders,” which reaffirmed and clarified the church’s ban on the ordination of homosexual priests (Congregation for Catholic Education 2005). Nor should it be surprising that in 2012 Pope Benedict denounced the legalization of gay marriage as “policies which undermine the family, threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself’ (Pullella 2012). In 2013 Pope Francis I assumed the Chair of Saint Peter, and it is unknown whether his papacy will see any changes with respect to these issues.
Homosexuality and Protestantism
Most of the major Protestant denominations in the United States have positions on homosexuality. Because the sixteenth-century German Reformation leader Martin Luther’s movement back to the authority of the Bible defined Protestantism, interpretations of scripture tend to play the major role in shaping Protestant denominations. Protestantism in the United States exists on a kind of continuum, with conservative Protestant denominations on one end (e.g., Southern Baptist Convention, Assemblies of God, independent evangelical churches), liberal Protestant churches on the other end (e.g., Episcopal Church, American Baptist Churches USA, United Church of Christ), and moderate Protestant churches in the middle (e.g., Presbyterian Church [USA], United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America).
In general terms, conservative Protestants tend to regard homosexuality as a perversion of God’s intent for creation (heterosexual marriage and children). They regard the institution of the heterosexual family as the bedrock of God’s plan and are opposed to anything that thwarts this plan. Homosexuality is considered a grave sin, and homosexuals are regarded as sinners; some conservative Protestants believe that there is an inherent contradiction between being Christian and being homosexual. Such Protestants hold that the Bible condemns homosexuality unequivocally and that Christians are called to do likewise and to help homosexuals repent of their sin. “Conversion ministries,” in which former homosexuals help homosexual persons convert to heterosexual! ty through Jesus Christ, are a suggested means of dealing with this aberrant lifestyle. Conservative Protestants view homosexual “inclinations” as either a depravity of nature or a willful choice to violate God’s intent, and thus these denominations retain an ambivalent attitude with regard to developments in science and genetics (Green, Numrich, and Barzelatto 2001).
Liberal Protestant denominations, in contrast, tend to regard homosexuality as an alternative expression of the variety and goodness of sexuality given by God. While affirming the inherent dignity of homosexual persons, such churches have taken advocacy positions for full civil rights for gay, lesbian, and transgendered persons, often including recognizing the legal status of domestic partners or same-sex marriages, as well as the adoption of children. Some of these churches perform holy unions or commitment ceremonies for same-sex members of their churches, and some also ordain “out” homosexual clergy. Liberal Protestants tend to embrace developments in science; in fact, many are sanguine about the benefits of science for humankind, particularly genetic science. One finds openness to the possible genetic etiology of homosexuality among liberal Protestants. The United Church of Christ (UCC) has taken several public stands affirming gay and lesbian persons, and “it was also one of the first American churches to affirm and ordain gays and lesbians in ministry” (Green, Numrich, and Barzelatto 2001, 23). In 2005 the Twenty-Fifth General Synod of the United Church of Christ voted to adopt an “Equal Marriage Rights for All” resolution, and by 2013 the UCC had over one thousand churches designated “Open and Affirming” nationwide (UCC 2013). The Episcopal Church has called for full participation in the life of the church for gay and lesbian persons, including church leadership, and in 2012 the General Convention of the Episcopal Church approved an official liturgy for blessing same-sex unions in the church, subject to approval by diocesan bishops. Still, many of these churches continue to grapple with the issue of how to regard homosexuality within the confines of their respective traditions. That particular issue came to a head in 2003 and 2004 when the Episcopal Church consecrated the first priest in an openly gay relationship as bishop of New Hampshire, Gene Robinson. Subsequently, many conservative clergy and congregations aligned themselves with conservative bishops outside the United States, sparking what has come to be known as the Anglican realignment.
Moderate Protestant denominations are a hotbed of struggle over homosexuality. The question of whether homosexuality is compatible with Christian teaching (especially the Bible) is intensely debated, and some have speculated that it could produce a schism in the church. Moderate Protestants are clear, however, that homosexuals are children of God and deserve a place in their congregations. Commitment ceremonies for same-sex unions, as well as gay marriages in states where this is legal, continue to be intensely debated in these denominations, as does the ordination of “practicing” homosexual clergy. At its 2011 General Assembly, the Presbyterian Church (USA) voted to change its constitution to allow the ordination of openly gay persons in same-sex relationships (Goodstein 2011), joining the UCC, the Episcopal Church, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. On the issue of gay marriage, however, the church voted in 2012 not to change the definition of marriage in its constitution from between “a man and a woman” to a union between “two people” (Goodstein 2012b). Meanwhile, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the largest Lutheran denomination in the United States, voted at its Churchwide Assembly in 2009 to allow gay men and lesbians in committed relationships to serve as members of the clergy (ELCA 2009), after having already allowed celibate homosexuals to be ordained.
The United Methodist Church has been in conflict over the disciplining of clergy who perform same-sex union ceremonies in its churches, as well as over the sanctioning of clergy who have “come out” as homosexual. In 2012 the General Conference of the church voted not to change the language in its Book of Discipline that calls homosexuality “incompatible with church teaching” and also voted not to accept a proposal calling for Methodists to acknowledge their differences on homosexuality while still remaining in communion with one another (Goodstein 2012a). The church holds that “practicing” homosexuals may not be ordained as clergy because “the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching” (United Methodist Church 2013). Finally, the Methodist Church makes a distinction between civil rights for homosexual persons and ecclesial rights, proclaiming that “certain basic human rights and civil liberties are due all persons. We are committed to supporting those rights and liberties for all persons, regardless of sexual orientation” (United Methodist Church 2013).
As has been seen, moderate Protestants are not settled on these questions, nor on the issue of whether homosexuals may adopt children. Rooted in an affirmation of biblical justice, however, all moderate Protestant denominations reject efforts to curb the civil rights of homosexuals, and they advocate nondiscrimination of gay and lesbian persons. There are also movements within a variety of Protestant denominations to affirm the rights and dignity of homosexuals. For example, in the Presbyterian Church there are “More Light” churches; the United Church of Christ has the “Open and Affirming” movement; and the Episcopal Church has a national gay and lesbian affirmation movement called “Integrity.”
Homosexuality and Islam
The Western concept of homosexuality, as identity and lifestyle, is unknown in most Muslim-majority countries. As Amreen Jamal notes, “the term ‘homosexuality’ is erroneous when it is used in Islam, unless it is used by Muslims who identify also with the Western description of the queer lifestyle which includes both behavior and orientation” (2001, 69). It must be stated that just as there are many versions of Christianity and Judaism, so Islam is not monolithic in its expression. Further, there are no formal clergy in Islam, nor are there any central governing institutions for Islamic theology, which high-lights the fluidity of scriptural exegesis, or interpretation, among Muslim scholars, particularly in the twenty-first century.
The authoritative text for Muslims, the Koran (believed to be the divine revelation from God to the Prophet Muhammad as told to him by Gabriel), has been interpreted as explicitly condemning same-gender sexual activity, although scholars disagree about this (see Kugle 2003; Habib 2008 ). The Koran references the same story that some Jewish and Christian scholars reference in the Hebrew Bible, the story of Lot and the destruction of Sodom (Genesis 19), as evidence of God’s condemnation of same-gender sex. Traditional Islamic scholars have tended to interpret this story as evidence of God’s disapproval of the actions of Lot’s people—anal penetration both between men and between married men and women.
Marriage and procreation are central values of Islam, and Muhammad is reported to have said, “Marriage is half the religion.” In light of this, classical Islamic jurisprudence finds same-sex activity, particularly between men, to be a punishable offense, although the offense must offend publicly and solid evidence of the offense must be established. In other words, sharia law has little concern for what occurs in private, but what is publicly offensive is punishable. While there is a range of opinion among scholars, premodern jurists and their contemporary supporters interpret homosexuality as a crime and not just a sin; because the penalty is not specified in the Koran, it is a matter for scholarly authorities to debate, and death has been interpreted as one of the possible punishments.
In his important text titled Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World, 1500-1800 (2005), Khaled El-Rouayheb has demonstrated persuasively that premodern Islamic culture lacked the concept of homosexuality, and therefore, it was not the timeless reality that many modern exegetes and cultural historians regard it to be. Similarly, Barbara Zollner (2010) holds that fatwa explicitly dealing with the idea of homosexuality are not to be found in classical works of Islamic law because the term itself did not exist until the nineteenth century. Instead, it is arguable that classical law dealt with the condemnation of a sexual act between two men under the rubric of liwat, a term that is never used in the Koran but can sometimes be used to refer to “the doings of Lut’s (Lot) people” (Zollner 2010, 208). Liwat can be used to signify homosexuality, but it is also used to denote other acts deemed to be immoral, such as inhospitality (Zollner 2010). There is no precise term for homosexuality in classical Arabic. This disagreement over the meaning of liwat has allowed contemporary scholars to challenge the idea that Islam condemns homosexuality, although a problem with this progressive approach is that it is inconsistent with classical Islamic jurisprudence, or fiqh (Zollner 2010). How classical Islamic jurisprudence relates to contemporary Muslim realities is an open debate.
Scott Siraj al-Haqq Kugle (2010) argues that sharia and secular human rights are “potentially compatible” and therefore that some rulings of sharia can be changed to adapt to new circumstances in order to keep adherents from choosing secular solutions to issues such as homosexuality. Kugle turns to the Hanafi school of Islam and the legal thinking of Abu Hanifa (its founder) as the grounding for compatibility between Western secular notions of “inalienable human rights” and Islam. According to Kugle, the Turkish scholar Recep Senturk advances this view, derived from Abu Hanifa’s belief that irreducible and basic human rights accrue to each person simply by virtue of one’s humanness. Therefore, Kugle concludes that this framework as a root for a doctrine of human rights could allow Muslims to “argue that secular human rights doctrine is not foreign to the Islamic tradition” (2010, 185).
Premodern Islamic Jurisprudence
There are four major legal schools in the Sunni Islamic tradition: Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali. The Hanafi school follows the principle that crimes and their punishments need to be mentioned explicitly in the text in order to find implementation under the category of hadd, which is to say that apostasy and adultery, for example, have fixed punishments such as flogging or death. Therefore, the Hanafi school does not consider liwat to fall under the rubric of hadd. Instead, liwat is considered a ta’zir crime, one whose punishment is left to the judge’s discretion. In theory then, the Hanafi school leaves room for potential reform of the restrictions placed on homosexual persons in Islam (Zollner 2010).
In contrast to the Hanafi interpretation, the Maliki school holds that homosexuality is a hadd offense, and punishment for it differs according to whether the guilty person was the penetrator or the penetrated. The penetrator is immediately given death, whereas the penetrated one is given a chance to repent (Zollner 2010). In the Shafi’i school of Islamic law, all participation in illicit sexual penetration is considered hadd, whether homosexual or heterosexual (an injunction unique to this school), and with no distinction between penetrator and penetrated. The Hanbali school holds with the Maliki, although it does not distinguish between participants and the penalty is death for both persons (Zollner 2010). The major Shia school of law, Ja’fari, holds that capital punishment is the penalty for same-sex penetrative intercourse (Kugle 2010).
Finally, it should be noted that there are many aspects of premodern and contemporary popular Muslim culture and civilization among Muslims that hint at the pervasiveness of homosexuality in Muslim society if not its toleration (see El-Rouayheb 2005 ). For example, Parvez Sharma, an Indian writer and filmmaker, directed A Jihad for Love, a 2007 documentary film that illustrates the coexistence of Islam and homosexuality through the personal struggles (jihad) of gay and lesbian Muslims throughout the world as they work to integrate their faith with their sexuality. The Al-Fatiha Foundation, dedicated to advancing the causes of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Muslims and combating homophobia in the Muslim world, was founded in 1997 in the United States. A statement was supposedly issued against it in 2001, calling for the death of its members as apostates, and in 2009 the foundation shut down its official website. It does, however, have a Facebook site. (For interesting contemporary studies of the possibility of reform interpretations of homosexuality in Islam, see Jamal 2001; Habib 2007a; Kugle 2010).