Robert
Merryweather’s Answer to the Question
I’ve been asked to
comment upon the question, “Can it be ethical to engage in homosexual
acts?” My answer to that question is
yes, it can be ethical.
Foundation
My views on homosexuality
are, of course, rooted in my broader worldview assumptions. I am an agnostic. I
believe that, at this time, we humans do not possess knowledge of anything
beyond the natural, empirical world that we inhabit and experience with our
senses. I do not assert that such knowledge could never be had in principle. I
won't even assert dogmatically that absolutely no one at all has
such knowledge now, but I claim that if anyone does have such
knowledge, it does not seem to be generally available to us. So perhaps I
should say that there seems to be no publicly verifiable knowledge
available to the human race at present of anything beyond the natural world. Of
course, unlike George, as an agnostic I do not have “official documents” I can
refer you to to find out more about agnosticism. Agnosticism is a substantial
view regarding what we know and what we don't know, and it greatly affects how
we view the world we live in, but in a sense it is a much more “negative”
worldview than George's—not “negative” in the sense of “bad” but rather in the
sense that it is more an affirmation of what we don't know
than a list of things we do know. This makes it much easier to
define. If you want to see more descriptions and definitions of agnosticism, I
would recommend the
Wikipedia article on “Agnosticism” as a good basic
overview, as well as Bertrand Russel's essay What is an Agnostic?
Of course, not everyone
agrees with me about agnosticism, and many non-agnostic holders of other
worldviews have claimed that their worldview can indeed be known to be true and
have presented arguments attempting to show this. If I wish to avoid begging
the question, then, in my claims regarding homosexuality which are rooted in my
agnosticism—and I do!—I must do something to respond to these arguments. George
and I have written up a debate document (found on Google Classroom) in which we
have argued for our respective worldviews. I will not repeat my arguments here,
but simply refer you to those documents.
It may be that there is
more to reality than the natural, empirical world, but if there is, we don't
know about it. No doubt there is much about the natural, empirical world even
that we don't know. But in constructing a system of ethics and deciding how
practically to live our lives, we cannot build on what we don't know
but only on what we do know. If someone suggests that we ought
to follow the commands of the Christian God just in case Christianity
might turn out to be true, well, what if Islam, or Hinduism,
or for that matter the ancient Aztec or Norse religion
turns out to be true? We will simply have dug ourselves into a deeper hole,
perhaps, by trying to be Christian. Of course, the religions overlap to a great
extent in terms of practical advice, but then in most of the areas of
overlap—such as prohibitions against murder, theft, etc.—one can reach the same
conclusions on naturalistic grounds as well and so one doesn't need to know
anything about the supernatural to establish such things. When we go beyond
these basic ethical principles, however, and begin to get into more specific
practical commands and prohibitions of the various religions, we find that the
religions differ greatly. Is it a sin to eat pork? Christianity says yes, Islam
and Judaism say no, etc. Also, there are times when the historic religions of
the world mostly agree on certain particular principles, but that agreement
seems to be rooted more in custom and prejudice than rational consideration. Homosexuality
is, I think, one of those cases. Many religions have been against it in human
history, but I don't think they can show that they have had good reasons to be
against it (barring belief in the supernatural claims of the religions). If
human antiquity nearly agrees on something, that should give us pause and make
us consider the matter carefully, but it should not determine the matter for us
if the position seems to be without or contrary to reason. After all, there are
many things—slavery, for instance, or lack of religious freedom, or belief in
magical cures for diseases—which have been nearly unanimously thought to be OK
by most human cultures in history which we now reject as irrational and not
conducive to human thriving. Homosexuality has been objected to by many
historic religions, but that doesn't prove they had (or have) a good reason to
be against it. And not all cultures have
been against it. In fact, it has been
widely practiced in various forms throughout the world’s cultures (the Wikipedia article on “Homosexuality”
documents some of this). Research has
shown that it is even present sometimes in the non-human animal world!
At any rate, we can only
work with what we have, and all we have, agnostics claim, is what we know of
the natural, empirical world. This includes our knowledge of the external,
physical world as well as our knowledge of our own inner thoughts, desires,
etc. George's Catholic worldview claims that there is an “objective moral law”
rooted in the will of God. We were created by God and belong to him, and
therefore there is a purpose for which we were made and to which we have a duty
to conform. But I see no basis to claim the existence of any such “objective
moral law.” What I do see is that we all have desires. We all
want to be happy. There are certain things that are more conducive to making us
happy, other things less conducive. Since we all want to be happy, we will want
to live in such a way as to be as happy as we can be. It is out of this fact, I
believe, that ethics arises. Ethics, in my view, is the art of recognizing both
our desires and the relevant facts of the universe in order to find a way to
live that brings about happiness and contentment. I would argue that the sorts
of motivations that are natural to us include motives of self-interest, by
which we seek our own personal happiness and well-being, and also motivations
which embrace a concern for others—such as love, empathy, sympathy, compassion.
As beings who have evolved in a social context, we are not only naturally concerned
for ourselves, but we are also naturally concerned for other beings around us
who we can see are like us in their capacity to experience pleasure and pain.
Therefore, I would argue that, ordinarily, the best way to live the happiest
life we can is to live in a way that balances self-interest with other-focused
motivations. We don't want to be too selfish, and on the other hand we don't
want to live as slaves to the desires of others to the point of our own misery.
I could go further on this point, but instead I will refer you to an excellent
little essay by Fred Edwords, The
Human Basis of Laws and Ethics, which I think has
argued for these points in a very compelling way. Here's another good one from Ronald Lindsay.
As social beings, we tend to live in groups and therefore require rules by which we can all attain happiness in harmonious societies. Since there is no moral law that transcends human desires, or at least none that we have any knowledge of, there is no basis for one person to have any intrinsic authority over anyone else. That is, there is no basis for me to say to you, “Because I am me, and you are you, it is inherently the case that you ought to do what I want you to do or what I tell you to do.” And vice versa. I am my own boss, and you are yours. I want my personal autonomy to be respected by others, and I'm sure you do as well. If, then, all of us want to live together in society, and we are properly motivated both by self-interest and by compassion for others, we will want to create a society that respects the autonomy of all individuals, treats all individuals equally, etc. We will want our laws and policies to be based on the consent of all the governed, and to be based on principles, ideals, and beliefs that all of us can reasonably be expected to share. We will not want to impose our own peculiar, un-objectively-verified opinions, values, and desires on each other.
John Locke, the great 17th century British philosopher, was one of the historic pioneers of the viewpoint that governmental authority must be based on the consent of the governed—usually called the social contract theory of government. Here is how he describes this position in his Second Treatise of Civil Government, chapter 8:
Sec. 95. MEN being, as has been said, by nature, all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent. The only way whereby any one divests himself of his natural liberty, and puts on the bonds of civil society, is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any, that are not of it. This any number of men may do, because it injures not the freedom of the rest; they are left as they were in the liberty of the state of nature. When any number of men have so consented to make one community or government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one body politic, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest.
Of course, we don't want to fall into a philosophy of “mob rule,” where the majority has the power to tyrannize over minorities. We want the laws and policies of society to be based on principles all people, both majorities and minorities, can share. Here is how the great twentieth-century moral philosopher John Rawls put it in his book, Political Liberalism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996), p. 137:
Our exercise of political power is fully proper only when it is exercised in accordance with a constitution the essentials of which all citizens as free and equal may reasonably be expected to endorse in the light of principles and ideals acceptable to their common human reason.
Therefore, we will want to avoid restricting the behavior of others except insofar as it is necessary to achieve the basic goals for society that we all share—such as the preservation of our lives from being taken away by others, preservation of personal property, and other such basic liberties and rights. This is the basis for the ideal of freedom of religion and conscience, such as is expressed in the First Amendment--”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .”--and in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18--”Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” It is inappropriate for a person to impose his/her religious values on other people through public laws and policies, for this would be to impose on other people without their consent, thus violating the very foundation of the social contract theory of government. Laws and policies should be based only on public reasons, not private ones—that is, reasons that are accessible to all through common human reason, not reasons that are believed only by a few because they are not fully objectively verifiable. Religious beliefs cannot be fully objectively verified, and therefore they fall into the private and not the public realm in this sense. They should not be made the basis of public laws and policies. The behavior of citizens thus should not be restricted on the basis of only private reasons, such as religious reasons. Leif Wenar shows how this would apply, for example, in the case of same-sex marriage:
To take a straightforward example: a Supreme Court justice deciding on a gay marriage law would violate public reason were she to base her opinion on God's forbidding gay sex in the book of Leviticus, or on a presentiment that upholding such a law would hasten the end of days. Not all members of society can reasonably be expected to accept Leviticus as stating an authoritative set of political values, nor can a religious premonition be a common standard for evaluating public policy. These values and standards are not public. (Leif Wenar, "John Rawls", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [Fall 2008 Edition], Edward N. Zalta [ed.], URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/rawls/>)
Homosexual Acts Can Be Ethical
It can be ethical to engage in homosexual acts. Why? Because it makes the people who engage in them happy. Of course, I’m speaking generally. It would not make everyone in the world happy to engage in homosexual acts at any time, in any circumstances, etc. Probably the large majority of the world’s population has no desire to engage in homosexual acts and would find no pleasure in doing so, and would probably find the practice very undesirable. And even those who are inclined towards homosexuality would, of course, need to use prudence in terms of how, when, with whom, etc., to engage in homosexual acts. So, as with any human activity, there are a lot of prudential questions to answer in terms of the specifics of when and how homosexual acts should be engaged in. All I’m saying is that homosexual activity, like heterosexual activity, is not off the map in terms of ethical activities some humans might reasonably choose to engage in.
Why would homosexual
activity be unethical? Some might argue
that it is unethical because it spreads disease. But homosexual activity does not in itself,
inherently, spread disease. Sure, there
are imprudent ways in which one might engage in homosexual activity that might
spread disease, just as is the case with heterosexual activity. Random and unthinking promiscuity—whether
heterosexual or homosexual—runs a high risk for disease, both for oneself and
for one’s sexual partners. Perhaps
certain forms of homosexual activity might be prone to the spread of disease or
to other physical harm. But this is all
irrelevant to the real point here. I
like the way the original question is framed.
The question is not, “Is it ethical at any time and in any way to engage
in homosexual acts?”, but “Can it be ethical to engage in homosexual acts?” My answer is yes, it can be ethical, if done
reasonably and prudently.
Some might argue that
homosexual activity is unethical because it can cause psychological harm, or
harm to families (such as when a person leaves his/her spouse to get involved in
a homosexual relationship). Well, yes,
again, of course there are ways of engaging in homosexual acts that can cause
psychological harm, or can harm families.
If Bob is strongly convinced that homosexual activity is wrong, or
dangerous, or whatever, and he engages in it anyway, he may experience great
psychological discomfort. Again, I am
not saying that everyone in any situation ought to engage in homosexual
activity. Bob might want to abstain, at
least until perhaps someday he has a change in his beliefs about
homosexuality. And if a person leaves a
spouse or some other committed relationship to form a homosexual relationship,
this can cause harm to the former spouse or partner. But, again, this is irrelevant to the point
of the original question. We’re talking
here about questions of adultery and other questions extraneous to the pure
question of the ethicalness of homosexual acts per se. Sexuality is a big deal in human life and
society. One’s sexual behavior can have
a great impact on oneself and others.
So, again, one must proceed prudently, as well as compassionately, when
one is considering engaging in some specific sexual act. All of this has to be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis. It’s exactly the
same with heterosexual activity.
Some might argue that
homosexuality used to be considered a psychological disorder. This is true.
But this is no longer the case.
The basic medical consensus today is that the earlier designation of
homosexuality as a mental disorder was based on lack of data, stereotypes,
false cultural assumptions, etc. The
Wikipedia article on homosexuality discusses this here. Based on our current level of scientific and
medical knowledge, there is simply no reason to classify homosexuality as a
mental or psychological disorder.
Another popular objection
is that homosexuality is “unnatural”.
Sexuality, so the argument goes, is obviously designed with reference to
procreation. It is obviously designed as
an act that is to take place between a male and a female. To take it out of that context, then, is to
misuse it by using it “unnaturally”.
Of course, there is truth
in this objection. It is obvious that
sexuality is something that has been “designed” by evolution for the primary
function of allowing males and females to procreate. Who could deny this? It’s one of the most obvious facts of the
biological world. But it is also
completely irrelevant to this discussion.
This objection seems to take the idea of “nature” and give it
quasi-personal properties, as if “nature” were some kind of god who creates
things for some purpose and has ownership over them, demanding that they be
used in certain ways. It’s as if the
objector is picturing nature as looking down (from somewhere) and saying, “Hey
you! Don’t you go using sexuality
outside of male-female relationships and for purposes other than procreation! That’s not what I made it for!” But this is to endow “nature” with something
like religious qualities. From a
scientific standpoint, “nature” is nothing more than the processes by which
things in the natural world function. So
far as the scientific evidence goes, there is no reason to believe that any
person designed sexuality or any other aspect of the natural world. Sexuality, like living systems in general,
evolved over millions of years by means of random mutations and natural
selection. Organisms reproduce and make
copies of themselves. These copies make
their own copies, and so on. Sometimes
the copies aren’t exactly the same as the versions they came from. Sometimes the differences hurt the survival
of the copy, sometimes they help.
“Natural selection” simply refers to the fact that some organisms
survive better than others. In the
evolutionary history of life, sexuality probably developed because the mixing
of DNA from multiple parents increased diversity in the offspring, and diversity
helps a species survive and thrive.
There is no actual design, no intentional purpose, in this process of
evolution. So far as our scientific
knowledge goes, sexuality was not created by any person for any specific
purpose. It is not owned by some god,
who gets to dictate by some objective moral law how it is to be used. As I said earlier, ethics is not rooted in
some objective moral law of God, but in our own human desires as we navigate
the realities of the world around us, trying to be happy. So it is completely irrelevant to the
ethicalness of an action whether that action is “natural” or “unnatural” in the
senses under consideration. All that
matters is whether it promotes happiness.
And, of course, homosexual activity, engaged in rationally and prudently
in the proper circumstances, does promote happiness. So the fact that it is “unnatural” does not
at all make it unethical.
The “It’s unnatural”
argument seems to me to be a bit question-begging as well, in that the users of
this argument don’t actually seem to believe their own argument. They merely use it to support a position
they’ve already reached on other grounds.
Why do I say that? Because they
use the argument selectively. Sexuality
is not the only thing we humans have taken out of its original or primary
context to make different uses of. We do
this all the time with the things we find in the world. Is it “natural” to cut down a tree and build
a house out of it? Surely the original
and primary role of a tree is to live and grow as a tree. But we cut it down and use the wood to build
all sorts of things. Is it “natural” to
shave a sheep and use its wool to make clothes?
Is it “natural” to cook food? Is
it “natural” to build canals, or irrigate fields? Is it natural to build machines so that
humans can fly through the air to distant places, or even to go into space and
walk on the moon? After all, as the old
saying goes, “If man were meant to fly, he’d have been born with wings!” I don’t see any way in which all of these
things can be declared to be “natural” that will preclude homosexuality from
being declared “natural” as well. If I
can cut down a tree and use its wood to build a house, why can’t I take the
sexual act and make use of it in a homosexual relationship for enjoyment, to
create bonding in a relationship that brings joy or security, etc.? If the latter is unnatural, so is the
former. If we say the former is natural
because it is natural for humans to use their brains to find new uses for
things that had a different original use, then isn’t that exactly what those
who engage in homosexual acts are doing with sexuality?
Some might argue that
homosexuality is a choice rather than a condition people are born with. But this does not seem to be true. (Again, see the
Wikipedia article for a helpful discussion and some
resources on this.) But, even more
importantly, I think it is irrelevant.
What if it were true that homosexuality was a choice rather than having
any deeper inherent roots in biology, etc.?
Why would that make it unethical?
Do I have to prove that an inclination to some activity is rooted in my
genes or my basic biology in order for it to be ethical for me to engage in
that activity? Do I have to prove that I
am hard-wired to play video games in order to justify playing them? Do I have to prove that I have some kind of
gene for world travel in order to justify enjoying traveling around the
world? Do I have to prove that I have a
built-in genetic basis to be attracted to brunettes before I can be justified
in marrying a brunette? In all of these
things, is it not enough to say that I have chosen to do these things because
they make me happy? So why would it be
otherwise with homosexual activity?
Some might argue that
homosexual acts are contrary to the law of God.
Well, prove to me that that is the case, and we’ll see where it takes
us. But, for now, I’m an agnostic, so
this argument doesn’t have much weight with me.
If religion is something that is unprovable, then it should be a
personal matter. If you choose to
practice a religion that is opposed to homosexuality, more power to you. But you can’t judge others on the basis of
your religion as if that religion constituted some objective norm for the whole
human race. That would be contrary to
reason.
I think I’ve pretty much
established my case to my satisfaction, so I’ll draw this essay to a close.
George
Stewart’s Answer to the Question
“Can it be ethical to
engage in homosexual acts?” No, I don’t
think it can be.
Foundation
I am a Catholic, and so I
hold to the Catholic worldview. The Catholic worldview is described in great
detail in the Catechism
of the Catholic Church, and in a more condensed form in
the Compendium
of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is summarized
in the
Nicene Creed. The Wikipedia article
on the Catholic Church is also helpful. We believe
that there are two fundamental sources of knowledge-- reason (which
refers to what God has made known to us by means of our senses and reasoning ability)
and revelation (which refers to what God has made known
through special messages and messengers, culminating in Jesus Christ and the
revelation he has entrusted to his Church). The Catholic Church, being the
church founded by Jesus Christ, has been entrusted with God's revelation and is
the authoritative interpreter of it. This revelation has been preserved and
expounded by the Church in two forms—in Scripture (the
revelation of God written and infallible) and in Tradition (the
revelation of God handed down infallibly through preaching and practice, with
the interpretation of that revelation the Church is led into through the
infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit). Two documents of the Second Vatican
Council, Dei
Verbum (especially Chapter II) and Lumen
Gentium (especially #25) describe this in
greater detail.
Since my answer to the question is rooted in the assumption of the truth of the Catholic worldview, it is my responsibility, to avoid begging the question, to make a case for the truth of that worldview. I will not attempt to do so here, however, as I have already done this in the debate document Robert and I have written up and which you can find on Google Classroom. I will simply refer you to that document.
God, being the Supreme Being and the Author of all creation, is the ultimate moral authority of the universe. Since God defines reality, his viewpoint is identical to objective reality. For me, who am not the Author of reality, a distinction can be drawn between my subjective viewpoint and objective reality. That is why I am capable of being wrong. To be wrong is to have one’s subjective view come into conflict with objective reality (and when that happens, reality always wins, of course!) But for God, there is no distinction between his subjective viewpoint and objective reality, because his subjective viewpoint defines reality itself–it simply is reality. So God cannot be wrong, not only because he is omniscient (he knows everything), but because there can be no conflict between his subjective viewpoint and objective reality, these being the same thing. (To use an analogy, think of an author and a novel. If I am a character in the novel, my subjective view could be out of accord with the objective reality of the novel, because there is a distinction between these two things. But the author cannot be wrong, because the author’s viewpoint defines the reality of the novel, since the novel flows from that viewpoint.)
This has huge implications for morality. If I see something as good, or bad, or as valuable, that is only my subjective opinion; it may or may not correspond to objective reality. But if God sees something as good, or as bad, or as valuable, then that thing truly is, objectively, good, or bad, or valuable. It is good, or bad, or valuable, not only to the subjective desires of individual creatures in the universe, but it has an absolute goodness, or badness, or value to Ultimate Reality itself. Therefore, if we view something as worthless which God sees as valuable, or if we view something as bad which God sees as good, or vice versa, our subjective opinion is objectively incorrect. And it is also displeasing to God, for when a being loves something, he hates to see others hating it, or vice versa. When a being values something, he hates to see it treated as valueless by others. This is because such an erroneous attitude is not fitting to the reality and doesn’t do it justice. We hate to see contempt shown for that which is good or love shown for that which is evil. By its very own nature, goodness is connected to happiness, and evil to unhappiness. God is the Supreme Good, and so to experience him is to experience the fullness of happiness; to lose him is to lose happiness. Therefore both the natural and the just consequence of turning away from the good, from God, is misery, while the natural and just consequence of loving goodness, loving God, is happiness. It is natural, and it is also God’s will, that justice be done–that goodness and evil receive the rewards that are fitting to them. Therefore we can be sure that what is good and right according to God’s viewpoint, which is the objective moral law of all reality, is indeed objectively good and right and also leads to happiness (at least ultimately, if not always in the short term), and that what is evil and wrong according to God’s viewpoint is indeed objectively evil and wrong and will lead ultimately to misery.
The objective moral law of God is known to us both through reason and through revelation, as the Catechism discusses further here.
Human laws derive their legitimacy from God's moral law. These include all the laws and rules by which we govern ourselves as individuals, as well as those by which we govern each other within human societies. God has created human beings and the universe in such a way that human nature naturally calls for certain forms of organization among human individuals with certain authority structures that go along with them--such as organizations of family and civil society (the state). Since God is the author of the human nature that gives rise to these institutions, these institutions are ordained by God and therefore have his authority behind them. Thus, in St. Paul's language (Romans 13:1-7), the "powers that be" are ordained of God and are thus ministers of God whom we are commanded by God's moral law to obey. Since these institutions are "ministers of God," they do not have unlimited authority. They only have authority when they are legitimately fulfilling their essential functions in a manner consistent with the objective moral law of God. Essential human governments, then, are a sort of limited microcosm of God's government of the cosmos. Just as God seeks to promote the good and condemn the evil in his government of the world, so human governments ought to rule according to God's moral law, promoting what is good and hindering or opposing that which is evil in order to further the common good and the glory of God. For more, see the Catechism's discussion of civil authority.
Homosexual
Acts Cannot Be Ethical
Homosexual acts cannot be
ethical because they are contrary to the moral law of God. God created the human race. He created us male and female. He created human males and females to join
with each other in a special covenant called marriage, in order to support each
other and to create a household for the procreation and upbringing of children. Sexuality was designed by God to be a means
of bonding between spouses and an expression of their love, as well as for the
purpose of procreation. It is contrary
to the moral law of God to take sexuality out of that context and to turn it
into something fundamentally different.
From this foundation arises moral prohibitions on various forms of
illicit sexual activity—such as pre-marital sex, masturbation, adultery,
prostitution, artificial contraception, and homosexual activity. These illicit forms of sexual activity are
gravely immoral because sexuality is a very special and sacred thing, seeing
that it is the God-appointed means for the creation of new human life and is an
important aspect of human love and relationships.
The Catechism of the
Catholic Church addresses these issues primarily here
and here. Here is the Catechism’s direct
teaching on homosexuality:
2357 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 through the centuries and in different cultures. Its
psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred
Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition
has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."
They 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.
2358 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.
2359 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. (CCC
#2357-2359, footnotes removed)
We need to make a
distinction between objective sin and subjective guilt. The Catholic faith teaches that homosexual
acts are objectively sinful, but that does not imply that every person who
engages in such acts has the same level of guilt. The subjective moral state of a person
involves more than merely the objective gravity of the sin. It involves the level of knowledge and
awareness a person has, the extent of the consent of their will, the level of
difficulty involved in avoiding the sin, and many other factors. It is relatively easy (in some cases) to
judge the objective wrongness of an act, but judging the subjective guilt of a
person is often immensely more complex.
In fact, usually we do not have enough knowledge, and nor is it our
place, to attempt such a subjective judgment.
So when I claim here that homosexual acts are unethical, I am referring
only to the objective immorality of the act.
I am not making any judgment whatsoever regarding the subjective guilt
of any particular person engaging in such acts.
Having now made my
fundamental case, I’ll spend the rest of my time responding to objections and
making clarifications.
Responses
to Objections
“Isn’t your view
inconsistent? You consider infertile
couples to have a valid marriage and to be able to engage in sexual acts. Why is OK for them but not for gays and
lesbians, seeing that in both cases there is an impossibility of procreation?”
The difference is that in
the case of an infertile couple, there is no intentional act of divorcing
sexuality from openness to procreation.
The failure of the sexual act to result in procreation is accidental and
unintended. There is no attempt to
deliberately remove sexuality out of its proper context and function. Sexuality is still being used properly, with
an openness to its fundamental purposes.
With homosexual acts, however, there is such a deliberate attempt to
misuse sexuality. The sexual act is
being intentionally removed from its God-ordained context and put into a
fundamentally different context. To use
an analogy, one might compare a person unintentionally being born with only one
arm vs. a situation where a person has only one arm because he has
intentionally severed it. So there is no
inconsistency in the Catholic position at this point.
“Don’t you Catholics
approve of the practice of NFP, where couples make use of natural feminine
cycles in order to avoid pregnancy? Why
is this OK, considering that it is a deliberate attempt to separate sexual acts
from procreation?”
The Catholic teaching is
that it is immoral to divorce the sexual act from its natural tendency towards
procreation. This is why the Church
opposes artificial contraception. But
NFP is a fundamentally different thing. There
are natural periods of fertility and infertility built into the female sexual
cycle. It is not contrary to the law of
God to use prudence in order to regulate births. There should be a recognition that children
are ordinarily a natural blessing in a marriage, and there should be an
inclination to allow procreation to occur, all other things being equal. However, there can be licit reasons to avoid
pregnancy—lack of ability or resources to raise children, health concerns,
circumstances that require a smaller family size, and other things. It is also licit to make use of the natural
cycles of fertility in order to regulate births. Couples are, in general, free to abstain from
sexual relations for various reasons, for various lengths of time—it can be a
good form of penance, for example. If couples
choose to make use of “sexual fasting” during times of fertility in order to
regulate births, this is perfectly acceptable according to the moral law of
God. This is not to divorce sexuality
from its natural tendency to procreation, or to take sexuality out of its
proper context, but it is consistent with the God-ordained purpose and
functions of sexuality.
It might be asked why God
allows couples to engage in “sexual fasting” and to space births, but he does
not allow them to use contraceptives or other means to divorce the sexual act
from procreation. We have already
pointed out the difference between these two things. But the question is, why does God allow the
one and not the other? Ultimately, if we
pursue many of these sorts of questions, we end up eventually at the brute fact
of what God has created and commanded.
We know from reason and from revelation that God has designed the human
race a certain way and has designed sexuality to function in a certain way. While reason can take us some part of the way
in seeing the reasons for aspects of God’s design, reason cannot give us all
the answers. Why did God make humans
with two arms rather than three? Why do
we not reproduce by means of asexual reproduction instead of sexual
reproduction? Why is grass green rather
than blue? Things are the way they are
because that is how God made them. If we
have good reason to believe that God has indeed made them that way, our lack of
knowing why in some particular case is not an argument against the truth of the
fact.
“Your view is contrary to
science. Modern medical science has
shown that homosexuality is not a disorder, but is a natural condition for some
people. Some people are, as they say,
‘born that way.’”
We could debate whether
or not homosexuality could or should be classified as some kind of
physiological or psychological "disorder." But it's not
important, because the Catholic position is not dependent on this issue.
There are aspects of human life that are completely "natural," in the
sense that they are a normal part of human nature as it currently exists, and
yet are still "disordered" in a deeper, metaphysical sense.
Take death, for example. What could be more natural than death?
Obviously, it is not a disorder when people die. It is the normal,
universal experience of all (or almost all, if you take a Catholic point of
view) human beings. But yet at a deeper metaphysical level, one that
takes into account not only the empirical sciences but the fundamental divine
purpose and design of human beings, death is a terrible disorder. Humans
were not created originally to die. Death entered the human race as a
result of the Fall. It is now a "natural" thing, but, at the
deepest level, it is fundamentally unnatural. The Fall not only brought
death, but it led to a widespread disordering of human nature. We are now
subject to all kinds of disadvantages and corruptions we would not have been
subject to before the Fall. Catholic theology talks about
"concupiscence"--the disordered desires of fallen human beings.
These are the desires that lead us into sin. (That is, these are desires that, instead of being "ordered to" or inclining towards what is good, are "ordered to" or incline us to what is bad. That is why they are called "dis-ordered.") These desires are, on the
biological level, quite normal, but they are anything but normal when we are
talking about the original design and purpose of human beings. Now please note that concupiscence in itself is not
personal sin. One is not responsible for one's disordered desires.
One can only be morally responsible for what is under the control of one's
will. It is choosing to act on a disordered desire and
to therefore do something ethically wrong that involves personal sin and
guilt. So having homosexual
inclinations is not a personal sin. But acting on those
inclinations and engaging in sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage
is a sin, at least objectively speaking. (To be balanced, though, we should note that all characteristics persons have in the world, even in a fallen world, even those characteristics that carry with them the potential disadvantage of inclining people towards sin, should not be seen as all-negative. All of these characteristics, including having homosexual inclinations, if submitted to the will of God, can express the uniquely valuable personalities of individual persons and can serve to benefit oneself, fellow human beings, and to glorify God.)
So I do not see any basis for the claim that the Catholic view of sexuality is
contrary to anything we know from the natural sciences. The natural
sciences can determine lots of things about human sexuality, but it is not
within the domain of the natural, empirical sciences to determine more
fundamental metaphysical and philosophical truths about human nature and the
divine design of that nature, or to determine which actions are ethical and
which are not. These are philosophical questions that transcend the
natural sciences and can only be answered within the domains of philosophy
and theology.
“But if
homosexuality--and other forms of non-traditional sexual inclinations--are
built into human nature, at least as it currently exists (in what you call a
"fallen" state), then isn't it unethical for the Catholic Church to
condemn such sexual activity? The Church is asking for the
impossible! It's asking for people to suppress or even to throw away who
they really are. It is unjust to ask this of anybody. And it's
harmful. The LGBTQ+ community tends to have a high rate of suicide,
precisely, at least in part, because of these kinds of inhuman demands.
You can't ask people to reject their real selves.”
I think this is perhaps
the most important objection against my position. I understand the very real concerns it is
expressing, and my first response is compassion. We should certainly not
underestimate how hard it is to live according to some of the Church's
teachings. And we should never underestimate the pain of those who do
experience real disrespect, hatred, and bullying for being who they are.
We should help and love and support such people, and all people. We do
such a terrible job of understanding, loving, and respecting those who are
different from us! No doubt a substantial portion of the backlash the
Church is experiencing from the LGBTQ+ community is justly deserved, as
Catholics, and most others as well, have failed to live up to the love and
respect required by the humanity of those who have struggled with things that
have put them at odds with the larger society.
However, I cannot agree with the objector that Church teaching is unjust in
this area. In a sense, our entire human civilization is built upon the
foundation of denial. We are all fallen creatures. Our desires are
continually driving us to do things we know in our reason we ought not to
do. That's one reason life is so hard. We must be constantly
restraining ourselves from doing what we want, making ourselves do what we
don't want to do, and in general going against and disciplining our human
inclinations. Different people struggle more with different things,
whether because of their peculiar circumstances, their peculiar personality and
psychological make-up, their particular physiology, or whatever. It is
notoriously difficult to get the mastery over our impulses and desires and to
bring them into conformity with right reason. That is precisely what
ethics is all about.
Ethics asks hard things of all of us. Sometimes it asks particularly hard
things of some. It calls some to be martyrs. What could be more
unnatural than allowing oneself to be killed, when simply saying a few words or
performing a few external actions (denying the faith, burning some incense to
the emperor) could preserve one's life? I just watched A Man for
All Seasons the other day, a movie about the life of Thomas More, who
allowed himself to be beheaded simply because he would not agree to King Henry
VIII being head of the Church of England and to his marriage to Anne
Boleyn. So many people tried so hard to get him to capitulate.
"All you have to do is just sign this piece of paper, no big
deal." But he allowed his head to get chopped off rather than do
it. I can't imagine what that was like, nor, I'm pretty sure, could
anyone else who has not been in that situation.
Sometimes people have been called to endure torture, or long, cruel
imprisonments, or other horrors, in order to preserve their ethical
integrity. Alcoholics have to go through a hard and painful process to
avoid capitulating to their addiction to drink. Some people are naturally
belligerent, or get angry easily, or lack compassion, and they have to work
hard to correct for these biases that would lead them into unjust
actions. Some married people find themselves attracted to another person,
and they have to work hard to suppress their desires, which would lead them to
do something that would harm their spouses and their children.
The challenge to "do the right thing" is surely the biggest and
hardest challenge human beings face in this life. The Church—or, to be
more accurate, God—calls on those inclined towards homosexual acts, and other
forms of unethical sexual expression, to live in a way contrary to their
natural tendencies. We mustn't underestimate how hard this can be.
And yet I see no objective reason to conclude that this is something a good God
would not ask of his creatures. God is the chief good. All other
goods shrivel into nothing in comparison to him, or they resolve into
him. Being with him forever is an infinite treasure that is worth all the
hardship this life can bring on us and far more. God has allowed evil to
exist in this universe, not because he likes evil or because he cannot stop it,
but because he knows that allowing it will lead to a greater good. He has
allowed sin and death, and all that follow them, to enter into this
world. He has allowed his creatures to suffer. But he is not only
all-powerful, but all-good and all-benevolent. He knows that the way of
suffering is ultimately the way of eternal life and happiness. He blazed
that path himself before us. In order to open the path to heaven for us,
Christ himself, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, lived a human life,
endured human hardships, and suffered and died. Then he rose from the
dead and ascended into heaven. He calls us to follow him, both into his
death and into his resurrection. This is what we are all called to,
though it takes different forms for different people. For those inclined
to homosexuality, part of this calling may involve a hard and painful struggle
against what seems so good and natural. It may lead to a lifestyle which
can be very difficult and lonely. But it is worth it. God is worth
it. It will pay off in the end. All God asks of any of us is that
we choose to follow him. We may not always do it very well, but he keeps
offering us his grace. We simply have to choose to keep getting up and
trying to go forward, knowing that he is with us and that it is worth it.
And, of course, there are consolations along the way, but these will take
different forms with different people.
People with an inclination to homosexuality are not called to deny who they
truly are. They are called, like all of us, to discipline their passions
and their actions in order to learn how to better become who they were truly
created to be. And they will succeed in the end if they keep choosing to
go forward. And even along the way, for many of them, there may be ways
to make life go more smoothly. All of us, as their brothers and sisters,
should strive to help them along their journey, to help them make that journey
successfully, and to help make the journey itself as smooth as possible.
“But how can you know it
is right to ask LGBTQ+ people to live according to these difficult Catholic
standards?”
Well, it all comes down
to the question of truth, doesn't it? Is Catholicism true or not?
If it is, then the teachings of the Church are not just human teachings, but
they come from God himself, our Creator, the one who knows and understands
everything, who is all-good and benevolent, and who is the source of the
objective moral law. So if Catholicism is true, if we want to get reality
right and live our lives appropriately and successfully, we have to look at
things from the Catholic point of view and live according to that. On the
other hand, if Catholicism is not true, then it is not from God. Its
teachings are merely the teachings of some human beings, and so there is no
reason why we should take them as normative for us.
Well, I think I’ve gone
on long enough. I’ve made my basic
case. Let the dialogue begin!
For more, see here.
ADDENDUM 6/14/21: I recently read an article encouraging people in the Church to get over simply condemning as unethical homosexual sexual relationships and instead focus attention on creatively thinking about how those with same-sex attraction might go forward positively in their life in the Church, particularly how those who cannot find fulfillment by entering into heterosexual marriage might develop other kinds of relationships. Thinking creatively and positively about these things seems to be a very worthy and much-needed endeavor. I also listened recently to a podcast from Jesuitical in which Catholic author Eve Tushnet was interviewed. She spoke about how same-sex attraction need not be seen as purely a negative thing--a difficulty to bear up under--but also as something put into one's life by God that can lead to positive blessings. This is true of all things in our lives, for all aspects of life are under the providence of God, and even those things that we do not want serve a purpose in our lives and can be a means of our growth and an aid to our service and living out of our callings in the world. If this is true with every other aspect of life, why not with same-sex attraction as well? Some very worthwhile things to think about here.
Posts
