«It’s time for the Church to face the reality. We need to stop, look at the facts and listen to our young people. You cannot deny evidenze. The victory of the ‘Yes’ is the sign of a social and cultural revolution in a country where the individualistic idea of family still prevails and where the concept of marriage as a fundamental mean of societal unity is lost (…) Religious wedding is also a civil wedding, and gay couples who will see themselves shut out of it could turn to judges, accusing us of discrimination if there are no laws dictating things. The Church has to ask herself when this cultural revolution started and why some people within her have refused to acknowledge this change.»
This is how the Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin spoke just after the victory of the ‘Yes’ vote in the Irish referendum on gay marriage. Unmistakable words, heavy and important words on an issue – the one of gay marriage specifically and homosexuality as a human condition deserving of the same respect of all others generally – that’s both embarrassing and uncomfortable for the Catholic Church.
In recent years the prelates all raced to see who could spread the most phantasmagoric gender theories that would see homosexuality clearly condemned by the Father in the Holy Bible, by Jesus Christ our Savior and Redeemer in the Gospels, and by the Holy Ghost for ever and ever, amen! Let’s try to clear the field of false myths and dangerous mystifications.
The person writing to you is a young catholic. Used to be an altar boy in a happy little town in the Salerno province, been around incense, holy water, crosses, ostensories, vespers, processions, Christmas and Easter wakes, Marian months, all that jazz. Still, all of this didn’t and will not save from the flames and tortures of Hell for the rest of eternity, because of my absolute unnatural and depraved human condition.
Whatever the Church of Rome says, I still believe in the pure and authentic message of God’s revelation, and not Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco not any other eminent citizen of the world’s smallest state will ever force me into believing that I’m destined to eternal damnation.
As a passionate scholar of religions, I’ve long been questioning Jesus’s message and what the Bible and Christianity have to say about homosexuality; I’ve tried to analyze the Word of God’s position on the whole same-sex love issue with spirit of criticism and scientific attitude. I’ve found some pretty interesting sparks for discussions and debate, from which we should start and rephrase all those statements that are the foundation for the frankly stupid condemn of homosexuality by the Catholic Church and a large part of her followers.
Nowhere in the Bible – and I say it again, nowhere – are homosexuals condemned openly. As people, they are still owned the same dignity, hospitality and help as any other human being; one cannot forget that humans were created «in the own image of God», and this fact precedes and transcends their sexuality. Everything that the Bible declares of negative, it’s aimed solely and exclusively at homosexual acts, and this is just because the writers of the Bible had no concept whatsoever as homosexuality as a psycho-sexual situation – a discover that has just recently been made.
According to christian morals – just like it happens for Islam and Judaism – there’s a quite big difference in between an homosexual orientation and an homosexual act; an homosexual orientation (a tendency, an inclination), «while still objectively being a moral disorder», isn’t considered sinful on his own; it becomes so only in the case where it may lead to an homosexual act. The homosexual act is indeed a great sin against chastity – it excludes the possibility of the gift of life, which should be the sole purpose of the sexual act. The homosexual act isn’t born of true affective and sexual compatibility, and therefore can’t be approved in any way.
In the Old Testament there are three different mentions of homosexual acts – the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Genesis and two quotes in the «Holiness Code» of the Leviticus. The passage about Sodom is the one that most gets used in condemning homosexuality, and it has often been interpreted as God’s horror when it comes to homosexuality. According to the biblical text, two angels incarnated in human form where sent to Sodom, where Lot invited them into his home. While the angels where with him, all the people of the town, «even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter», and wanted the visitors to step out, shouting, «where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out onto us, that we may know them» (Genesis, 19:5). Despite Lot’s offering of giving them his two virgin daughters, Sodom’s people insist in their request, and so the angels blind them. Lot and his family escape, even though Lot’s wife gets turned into salt for turning back, going against the angels’s instructions. The cities are destroyed by a shower of sulfur and fire and Sodom and Gomorrah disappear for ever by the will of God.
Now, Sodom’s people was indeed wicked, but it’d be a great misinterpretation of the truth to impute their wickedness on their presumed homosexuality. Ezekiel, 16:49-50, tells us, «Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and commited abomination before me: therefore I took them way». If Sodom’s people were all homosexuals, why is it that Lot offers them his daughters? Even more, Sodomites couldn’t be all homosexuals, destroying the city would have been pointless – with no children being born, the community would have died out in a few years anyways. What we can see here is, in fact, wicked men threatening to use rape on two foreigners. What’s important in this passage is that all kind of violence is considered by God as a terrible thing, and that is why Sodom’s people were destroyed.
There are two points in the Holiness Code of the Leviticus, 18:22 – «Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination» – and 20:13 – «If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them» – that seem to be clearly condemning homosexual relationships, specifically gay ones.
We need to remember, though, that this Holiness Code isn’t applied in Christianity – other norms within it are completely discarded, like circumcision, particular laws about food, the prohibition on tattoos and shaving, menstrual impurity, prohibition of eating seafood, eccetera eccetera eccetera, but I don’t recall these particular norms being used.
Still, many christians, all sparked up by prelates and low-ranking ministers alike, base their vision of homosexuality on these laws, believing them to be examples of God’s will. This vision isn’t universally shared, though. For many philologists and commentators these are just «purity» norms that were necessary in the means of the survival of the Jewish people. There are a lot of hygienic and alimentary norms right next to the behavioral ones, and when seen like this, the matter of not lying with mankind might just mean trying to keep birth rate at a maximum.
Most of the books in the New Testament, including the Gospels, never talk about the question of homosexuality. The only author that explicitly mentions it is Paul, the apostle that always comes up in ecclesiastic discussions about homosexuality.
There are some minor passages in the letters to the Romans and the Corinthians, and in the First Letter to Timothy as well, that are evergreens of the catholic fight against homosexuality. One of Paul’s most stark remarks is in Romans, 1:20-32, «So that men are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed he gory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible men, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves (…) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receive in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.»
These are clear and very not-up-to-misinterpretation words, but to better comprehend their meaning we should bring into the discussion the whole socio-cultural context of greek-roman society where male prostitution and pederasty where wildly common. Paul might mean this kind of abusive relationships, without having examples of stable homosexual relationships based on mutual respect and love. Robin Scrohh has no doubts on the matter – the homosexuality that the New Testament opposes in pederasty, which was very common in the Greek and Roman society.
Paul mentions homosexuality two more times, in Timothy, 1:9-10 – «The law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for mansalyers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for manstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to the sound doctrine» – and in First Corinthians, 6, 9-10 – «Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, not idolaters, nor adulterers, not effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, not thieves, not covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God». These passages present a series of sins presented as forbidding of entering the kingdom. In First Corinthians there are two words referencing to homosexuality – malakós, translated in ‘fornicators’, and arsenokoitês, translated in ‘homosexuals’. Still, these two words are incredibly rare – malakós appears only in this specific context, while arsenokoitês occurs only here in all Ancient Greek tradition and literature. Malakós literally means ‘sweet, delicate’, and in an homosexual relationship probably refers to the passive partner, or maybe a male prostitute or an effeminate individuals. The study of the word asenokoitês, though, completely invalidates these considerations. The word literally means ‘someone who lies with a man’, and is used by rabbis of the judaic-hellenistic tradition to refer to the homosexual act. So not just pederasty.
Jesus never said anything on the matter, though, which is significant.
In the New Testament there’s nothing concerning homosexuality. And this is precisely why homosexual relationships shouldn’t be seen as a threat to Christianity or families or world peace – Jesus believed hypocrisy and injustice to be bigger issues in the coming of the kingdom of God, not love in all its forms and declinations.
The episcopal priest Tom Horner commented two passages of the Gospels where Jesus’s attitude towards gay and lesbians was most definitively not hostile. The first one is when Jesus heals the centurion’s servant, in Matthew, 8:5-13. The word that’s used to describe the servant is pais, which is always used in Greek culture to refer to the younger lover of an older man with an higher social status. The passage clearly shows how this bond was very intense, and how Jesus’s response was nothing if positive, «And when Jesus was entered into Capernam, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, and saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented. And Jesus saith unot him, I will come and heal him (…) And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.»
Another passage is found in Matthew 19:11-12, when he talks to some eunuchs, who are generally associated with homosexuals, «But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it».
Jesus’s attitude towards the eunuchs was extremely different from the one of the pharisees. These eunuchs were excluded from adoration and participation in the religious community, but to them Isaiah dedicates a truly beautiful prophecy, in 56:4-8, «For thus said the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prater for all people. The Lord GOD which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, yet will I gather others to him, besides those that are gathered unto him.»
Jesus gives proof of being compassionate towards the eunuchs, and we can clearly see it when the prophet Isaiah tells that «I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off». It’s clear to see that Jesus is referring to three different classes of eunuchs – unmarried men, men who were castrated to serve as slaves, and men who were born homosexuals. It was a custom of the time that royal households and rich families had slaves for working and the care of the concubines; slaves for female members of the royal families were preferred, when homosexuals, since it avoided worries and doubts about unwanted pregnancies and rapes. Jesus never had a word of contempt for gay eunuchs, and homosexual in general. It’s difficult then to understand why the Catholic Church – as an institution, not a divine message – keeps on condemning homosexuals and considering them a danger to humanity. God wasn’t an homophobe. The Vatican and its ministers, on the other hand, might just be!
