Homosexuality and Christianity: A Review Discussion*

HOMOSEXUALITY AND CHRISTIANITY: A Review Discussion * The traditional Christian condemnation of homosexual practice , under increasing challenge from Protestant sources since the groundbreaking work of Derrick Sherwin Bailey (1955) ,1 was not significantly contested among Catholic scholars until a few years after the " lively debate " had erupted over Humanae Vitae (1968) .2 By 1976, some revisionary Catholic proposals concerning homosexuality had provoked a reaction from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.8 The silencing of pro-gay theological advocate John McNeill, S.J., attracted some further notice the following year.4 But despite frequent predictions-some fearful, others hopeful-the 1970s ended without the Catholic Church being nearly as agitated over homosexuality as it had been over contraception a decade earlier. One might account for this by pointing out that, even in traditional Catholic thinking, the moral evils of contraception *John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexucdity: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980). Pp. 424; $27.50 (cloth), $9.95 (paper). 1 D. S. Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition (London & N.Y: Longmans, Green and Co., 1955; reprinted, HamdBn, ShoeString Press. Inc., 1975). 2 The quoted phrase was used by Paul VI to characterize the Humanae Vitae controversy, which he hoped would "lead to a better understanding of God's will." (Letter to Congress of German Catholics, August 80, 1968; AAS, LX [1968), 575.) a Declaration on Certain Questions concerning Sexual Ethics (Persona Humana, December 29, 1975; AAS, LXVIII [1976], 84-85). 4 McNeill's book, The Church and the Homosexual (Kansas City: Sheed, Andrews and McMeel, 1976), was originally published with ecclesiastical approval; but within a year this approval was rescinded and the author was prohibited from further writing or public speaking on the subject.-See Origins, VII, #14 (Sept. 22, 1977)' 218-219. 609 610 .BRUCE A. WILLIAMS, O.P. and homosexuality are not simply equatable. But given the underlying logic which has been common to both condemnations notwithstanding their specific differences, the disparity of contemporary attitudes regarding these condemnations is hardly understandable on strictly moral grounds.5 A more pertinent explanation may be found in the observation that homosexuality , unlike contraception, dir·ectly and personally affects a rather decided minority who are not viewed favorably by most other people. This becomes even more evident when the focus is shifted from the church to society at large, where legal and extra-legal intolerance of homosexuality is still widely conspicuous. While it might be argued that this manifests a residual Judaeo-Christian concern for the integrity of the procreative family, such an argument is not easily tenable inasmuch as other practices traditionally seen as inimical to familial values-not only contraception but divorce and even adultery-have gained considerably broader acceptance in Western culture. Ronald Bayer of The Hastings Center (New York), noting that the "sexual revolution " of the 1960s did not significantly transform social attitudes toward homosexuality, remarks: "The abhorrence of homosexual practices, so deeply rooted in the Western cultural tradition, had taken on a force of its own and could not collapse merely because conditions were ripe." 6 5 This disparity seems to have had repercussions also in the realm of pastoral judgment. San Francisco Archbishop John R. Quinn, while president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, told the World Synod of Bishops in Rome (Sept. 29, 1980) that in regard to contraception, "the moral issue as such has been resolved by many " American Catholics who regularly receive the eucharist while refusing to observe papal teaching; although he was greatly disturbed at this situation in terms of its ecclesiological implications (and this was his major point), he clearly indicated that he considered the eucharistic communion of these non-conforming Catholics to be in good faith. But in his pastoral letter on homosexuality , issued only months earlier, the same prelate offered no similar allowance for eucharistic participation in good faith by actively gay Catholics; on the contrary , he insisted that " homosexual persons who wish to receive the eucharist must be honestly following the moral teachings of the church or at least seriously striving " to do so.-See Origins, X, #7...