The definition of the abbreviation LBGTQIA (or LGBTQIA) found in the Merriam-Webster dictionary includes the following groups: lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning (one’s sexual or gender identity), intersex, and asexual/aromantic/agender.  We are therefore far from the perceptions on human sexuality that prevailed when the issue of homosexuality was debated in twentieth-century churches.  But the debates continued into the twenty-first century, and today, many denominations have taken relatively firm positions on the issue.  In this article, I will use the acronym LBGTQ for simplicity, while recognizing the complexity of an issue whose understanding is still evolving.

I do not claim that I thoroughly understand the finer points of human sexuality, and I suspect that the binary male/female treatment it has received from Christian institutions does not account for its complexity.  But since Christians consider the Bible the primary source of authority on such matters, my objective here is to examine the biblical material and arguments used by churches to support their stances on LBGTQ issues.  As indicated in this reference, those stances generally consist in the acceptance or rejection of the following categories:

• Admission of homosexuals as members
• Ordination of practicing homosexuals
• Blessing of same-sex unions
• Acceptance of same-sex marriages (performance of same-sex marriage ceremonies)

The above reference also shows the variety of positions taken by various denominations on the issue.  For example, the Southern Baptist Convention rejects all four categories.  The Catholic Church accepts homosexual members but rejects the other three items.  The Episcopal Church accepts all four items and even ordained an openly gay bishop as early as 2003.  The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) accepts gay members and ordains gay clergy but leaves same-sex unions and same-sex marriages to individual congregations and their pastors.

In general, the LBGTQ issue has been a source of major conflict between conservative and progressive Christians.  In some cases, the differences were irreconcilable, leading to a split into separate denominations.  For example, in October 2021, the Reformed Church of America announced a reorganization as its conservative congregations chose to secede from the larger body and pursue their own path.

In this article, I will focus on examining the rationale presented by the Roman Catholic Church to justify its position.  For comparison, a follow-up article will look at the approach taken by the ELCA.

Early in his papacy, Pope Francis made some statements that expressed his reluctance to judge homosexuals and even hinted at potentially supporting national laws for same-sex civil unions.  But in March 2021, presumably with his approval, the Vatican issued a decree that reaffirmed the existing teaching of the Catholic Church and declared that priests could not bless same-sex unions.

Therefore, the position of the Roman Catholic Church on LBGTQ matters will be examined here in light of a document from the Vatican issued in October 1986, titled Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons.  The letter refers to an earlier document titled Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics, issued on December 29, 1975.  The earlier document had drawn a distinction between the “homosexual condition or tendency” and “individual homosexual actions.”  Only the individual homosexual actions were condemned as being “intrinsically disordered,” which means they were not part of the natural order established by God.  The letter then proposes to correct a later misinterpretation of the Declaration that led some to conclude that the homosexual condition itself is not disordered.  The correction reads as follows:

“Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”

In other words, not only the actions, but the condition itself is declared to be outside of God’s will and intent.  Stating that “the homosexual person is not a sin” does very little in terms of softening the condemnation.  There is also an ambiguity: to recognize that there is a homosexual condition is to admit that nature plays a part in it.  But at the same time, the claim is that God does not take ownership of it as part of his good creation.  In other words, homosexuality is a mistake of nature.  Whose mistake?

The letter claims that its authority is derived from both “the solid foundation of a constant Biblical testimony” and the “Church’s living Tradition” which is indispensable for correct interpretation of Scripture.  In other words, there is an assumption that Catholics are not allowed to think outside of the box defined by Church tradition.

The first piece of biblical evidence comes in the following statement:

“Providing a basic plan for understanding this entire discussion of homosexuality is the theology of creation we find in Genesis. God, in his infinite wisdom and love, brings into existence all of reality as a reflection of his goodness. He fashions mankind, male and female, in his own image and likeness. Human beings, therefore, are nothing less than the work of God himself; and in the complementarity of the sexes, they are called to reflect the inner unity of the Creator. They do this in a striking way in their cooperation with him in the transmission of life by a mutual donation of the self to the other.”

This statement is obviously an interpretation of the following biblical passage:

“Then God said, ‘Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’

    So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.’” (Genesis 1:26-28)

In Genesis 1:31, God also declares that his creation is “good.”  The interpretation offered here assumes that the only types of humans created by God are males and females, and that the ability to procreate is an essential aspect of the definition of humans as made in God’s likeness.  The complementarity between male and female in the process of procreation is assumed to correspond to the oneness of God and his power to create, even though the God of the Bible is generally not assumed to have a female counterpart.  But the result of this assumption is that those who cannot procreate have no place in the divine plan.

It is claimed, in the above, that anything that falls outside of that scheme is essentially “disordered.”  The fundamental question that must be answered is therefore whether these verses were intended to exhaust all the possibilities in God’s creation.  Is anything that is not included in Genesis 1 to be legitimately excluded from God’s good creation?  I find it difficult to subscribe to such literalism.  If I do, I will also have to ask why the concept of morning and evening exists on earth from the first day of creation, even though the sun and the moon are only created in the fourth day.  It makes more sense to assume that Genesis 1 introduces some important theological and moral ideas, but does not answer every imaginable question about creation, such as why some humans are born with different genital features.  I find it rather arrogant to assume that such humans are mistakes in God’s creation.

The next piece of evidence comes from Genesis 3, which describes what is usually referred to as the fall of mankind:

“In Genesis 3, we find that this truth about persons being an image of God has been obscured by original sin. There inevitably follows a loss of awareness of the covenantal character of the union these persons had with God and with each other. The human body retains its ‘spousal significance’ but this is now clouded by sin.”

The story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 3 is one of disobedience and increased accountability before God for those who seek emancipation from God through “knowledge of good and evil.”  Some Christian thinkers interpreted the story using the idea of original sin, even though the word sin does not appear in the Bible until Genesis 4, in connection with a different story (Cain and Abel).  The above statement reflects the adoption of the concept of original sin by the Catholic Church and extrapolates from it to declare that homosexuals are the result of a perversion introduced by sin.  But homosexuals are mentioned neither in Genesis 1 nor in Genesis 3.  This is therefore an example of interpretation influenced by Church tradition.

Next, as one might expect, the story of Sodom is mentioned as further evidence:

“Thus, in Genesis 19:1-11, the deterioration due to sin continues in the story of the men of Sodom. There can be no doubt of the moral judgement made there against homosexual relations.”

The word sodomy is derived from the story of Sodom, where the evil townspeople express their hostility to strangers by threatening to have sex with Lot’s angelic guests.  But the use of the word results from a biased interpretation of the story that puts an exaggerated focus on homosexuality.  The story is one of violence rather than same-sex love.  When Lot resists their demands, the townspeople threaten to treat him even worse than his visitors (Genesis 19:9).  And when Lot, the good guy in the story, volunteers his daughters for abuse, he is not exactly showing that he lives by a high moral standard either.

But more importantly, there is evidence that the Bible itself does not see homosexuality as the main point of the story of Sodom.  The prophet Ezekiel describes the sin of Sodom and does not mention homosexuality:

“Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.” (Ezekiel 16:49-50)

The next piece of evidence is the condemnation of sex between men by the Law of Moses in the book of Leviticus:

“In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, in the course of describing the conditions necessary for belonging to the Chosen People, the author excludes from the People of God those who behave in a homosexual fashion.”

Leviticus 18:22 prohibits sex between men and Leviticus 20:13 mandates the death penalty as punishment for violators.  At the very least, a Christian should question the imposition of capital punishment and the authority that leads to it.  And that makes it legitimate to also question the prohibition itself, even though biblical literalists would never do such a thing.  Indeed, they believe that all statements in the Bible have equal divine authority, even though there is much in the New Testament (and even in the Old Testament itself) to invalidate such an assumption.  Indeed, in my book Grace and Truth, I show that the biblical narrative makes no room for the assumption of inerrancy.

Here, I will only mention that the Old Testament does not treat sexual sins with consistency.  Abraham’s wife Sarah is his half-sister, and the couple is chosen by God to lead humanity back to him.  Such a marital relationship will later be prohibited in the Law of Moses (Leviticus 22:17).  As for Lot, his daughters have sex with him, presumably to ensure the continuation of his line after the destruction of Sodom (Genesis 19:30-38).  The act is therefore seen as necessary but will become unthinkable under the Law of Moses (Leviticus 18:6).

Moses himself was the product of a marriage between his father, Amram, and the sister of Amram’s father (Exodus 6:20).  Such a relationship would later be prohibited under the Law of Moses (Leviticus 20:19-20).  It is therefore clear that views on sexual sins change with cultural conditioning in the Old Testament.  Those who view the Law of Moses, in its entirety, as divinely ordained and permanently applicable, will find it difficult to disregard any of its stipulations.  But those who believe the new covenant in Christ replaces the old covenant through Moses, as explicitly stated by Hebrews 8:13, will think twice before discriminating against other human beings based on stipulations in the Law of Moses.

In the New Testament, there is no record of any pronouncement by Jesus on homosexuality, even though there is an indication that he saw the sin of Sodom, in agreement with Ezekiel, as a matter of hostility to strangers or poor treatment of neighbor (Matthew 10:14-15).  The Letter to the Bishops relies, to make its case, on statements in the New Testament letters attributed to Paul.  It states the following:

“Against the background of this exposition of theocratic law, an eschatological perspective is developed by St. Paul when, in I Cor 6:9, he proposes the same doctrine and lists those who behave in a homosexual fashion among those who shall not enter the Kingdom of God.

In Romans 1:18-32, still building on the moral traditions of his forebears, but in the new context of the confrontation between Christianity and the pagan society of his day, Paul uses homosexual behaviour as an example of the blindness which has overcome humankind. Instead of the original harmony between Creator and creatures, the acute distortion of idolatry has led to all kinds of moral excess. Paul is at a loss to find a clearer example of this disharmony than homosexual relations. Finally, 1 Tim. 1, in full continuity with the Biblical position, singles out those who spread wrong doctrine and in v. 10 explicitly names as sinners those who engage in homosexual acts.”

It is not surprising that Paul, with his early background as a Pharisee, would have viewed pagan sexual practices as repulsive.  But perhaps it is useful to examine what he actually wrote:

“Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.” (Romans 1:26-27)

In these verses, Paul goes beyond the Law of Moses by denouncing sexual relations between females in addition to those between males.  His rationale is that such relations are unnatural.  In other words, it does not occur to him that such relations could be a result of natural urges.  But considering that sexual norms tend to change with cultural conditioning, there is no reason why this perspective cannot change if one comes to the realization that the homosexual condition is a natural phenomenon.

Furthermore, even though Paul considers these acts “shameful,” the penalty he associates with them is a physical one (perhaps a disease resulting from promiscuous behavior) that fits the nature of the offense: violators receive “in themselves the due penalty for their error.”  These “shameful acts” are to be contrasted to the category of sins listed in Romans 1:28-32, a category that is closer to the unforgivable sin, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and leads to death (Romans 1:32).

There are, in fact, higher considerations to keep in mind.  For those who recognize that the new covenant supersedes the old one, moral behavior is no longer driven by legalistic prescriptions such as the ones in the Law of Moses.  Indeed, Jesus declares that the entire law is summed up in the golden rule: “do to others what you would have them do to you.”  That provides a different way of looking at sin.  And Paul merely echoes Jesus when he says:

“Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not covet,’ and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” (Romans 13:8-10)

Frankly, I haven’t figured out how two people of the same sex expressing love to each other in the privacy of their homes might cause harm to me.  And biblical statements that simply condemn homosexual acts, without providing any explanation, are not powerful enough to supersede this view of sin dictated by new covenant logic.  In particular, it is clear that I have arguments against the presumably biblical position taken by the Catholic Church, but I fully accept the teaching from Jesus about love of God and love of neighbor as driver of the new morality.

Following the above discussion, the Letter to the Bishops summarizes its position as follows:

“To choose someone of the same sex for one’s sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator’s sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.”

Again, the ability to reproduce is placed at the center.  One wonders if sex is allowed for anybody, homosexual or heterosexual, who is incapable of having children.  Are women who are too old to have children allowed to engage in sexual activity?  In 1 Corinthians 7:5-6, regarding sexual matters, Paul tells married couples:

“Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”

He seems to recognize that sexual urges are difficult to control and advises married couples not to needlessly suppress them.  It is obvious that the advice is about sexual relief and has nothing to do with procreation.

Another claim in the above statement is that celibacy is a form of self-giving that is required of LBGTQ people when they accept the Christian faith.  But when Jesus talks about self-giving and self-denial, he is pointing to the self-sacrificial love for the benefit of others that he demonstrated with his own life.  How does the suppression of sexual urges by LBGTQ people benefit others?

Added to this is another statement that, in my view, almost seems like an insult to LBGTQ people:

“As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one’s own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood.”

This statement seems rather empty to anybody who does not already accept the doctrine being defended here!  Those who have doubts will ask: How can the Catholic Church defend the personal freedom and dignity of LBGTQ people by telling them that their condition is a disorder?

The Letter to the Bishops rejects the suggestion that the Catholic Church discriminates against LBGTQ people.  It also denounces attempts from outside and inside the church to accept homosexual behavior.  It warns, without providing any specific examples, against dangers associated with homosexuality:

“There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups’ concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved.”

Given that the letter was written in the 1980’s, and in the absence of additional details, I can only speculate that the Catholic leadership was, here, directly linking the aids epidemic to homosexuality.  In my view, that would be equivalent to claiming that homosexuality is intrinsically promiscuous and naturally leads to epidemics.  That would be a rather bold accusation.

The letter also hints, with no details, to the familiar notion among conservatives that homosexuality endangers the family:

“She (the Church) is also aware that the view that homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on society’s understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy.”

This statement explains the opposition to civil unions for gay people: somehow, they are a threat to the notions of marriage and family as understood by the Catholic Church.  Unfortunately, such positions are bound to provide ammunition to extremists who are only too happy to translate their religious beliefs into acts of hate.  The Church then finds itself obligated to take a position against such acts of hate:

“It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.”

But the Catholic Church assumes no responsibility for these acts of malice.  In fact, it is those who defend or promote homosexual behavior who are to blame:

“But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.”

This is strange: those who, with a conservative approach to the Bible such as the one offered here by the Catholic Church, provide the religious rationale adopted by hate groups to justify their actions, are not to blame.  But the progressives who advocate for tolerance and acceptance are to blame.  Strange logic indeed!  This is like saying that religious leaders who provided the biblical justification of slavery were not to blame for the evils of slavery.  But the abolitionists who advocated for equality were to blame for any violence that resulted from attempts to change the status quo.

The letter rejects the notion that “the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable.”

This objection assumes that the biblically based arguments presented by the letter have fully established the fact that homosexuality is sinful.  I have made my position clear: if homosexuality is a natural phenomenon, the understanding expressed by Paul in Romans 1:26-27 must necessarily be revised.  Today, it is clear that the LBGTQ issue is no longer understood as it was in the first century.  Furthermore, Jesus’ new covenant of love dictates a new way of looking at sin that does not necessarily make homosexual acts sinful since it is not clear how they cause harm to one’s neighbor.  However, just out of curiosity, let’s see how the letter addresses the objection it raised on its own: Are homosexuals engaging in sexual activity guilty if they do so because they simply have no control over their urges?  The letter responds as follows:

“Here, the Church’s wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases. In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well. As in every conversion from evil, the abandonment of homosexual activity will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God’s liberating grace.”

This response emphasizes that homosexuals have free will and the ability to overcome their sexual urges with help from God’s grace.  But that also means they have a steeper hill to climb compared to heterosexuals who do not need to suppress their sexuality.  How unfair!  But who said life is fair? It is what it is, and LBGTQ people just have to live with it, because their salvation depends on it:

“What, then, are homosexual persons to do who seek to follow the Lord? Fundamentally, they are called to enact the will of God in their life by joining whatever sufferings and difficulties they experience in virtue of their condition to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross. That Cross, for the believer, is a fruitful sacrifice since from that death come life and redemption. While any call to carry the cross or to understand a Christian’s suffering in this way will predictably be met with bitter ridicule by some, it should be remembered that this is the way to eternal life for all who follow Christ.”

I suppose I may be one of those who meet this doctrine “with bitter ridicule.”  I understand that followers of Christ are expected to accept suffering in his name.  I just cannot connect celibacy for homosexuals to anything that Christ considered important.  But the letter turns once again to Paul for support:

“It is, in effect, none other than the teaching of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians when he says that the Spirit produces in the lives of the faithful ‘love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, trustfulness, gentleness and self-control’ (5:22) and further (v. 24), ‘cannot belong to Christ unless you crucify all self-indulgent passions and desires.’”

Here, it is important to understand that Paul’s primary objective, in Galatians, is to proclaim that the Gospel of Christ supersedes the Law of Moses.  After presenting various arguments to make that case, he offers an alternative to the Law, which he calls Life by the Spirit, in which love is the primary driver of behavior:

“You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love.  For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” (Galatians 5:13-14)

The freedom mentioned here is freedom from the legalistic demands of the law.  Under Life by the Spirit, moral behavior is driven by the human qualities listed in verse 22, which are associated with a loving spirit, and Paul says “Against such things there is no law.”  Self-control is listed as one of those qualities, but the above statement attempts to directly link it to celibacy for LBGTQ people.  Furthermore, the rendering of verse 22 in the NIV is “Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.”  Therefore, the word “self-indulgent” that appears in the above statement is omitted as non-essential in the NIV translation.  But it appears essential to the authors of the letter who claim that sex among homosexuals is self-indulgent because it does not serve the purpose of procreation.

Self-control is needed in relation to a variety of things: eating habits, emotions and sex are among them.  On matters of sex, as I explained earlier, Paul mentions self-control, but does not define it as sex for the purpose of procreation only.  He feels that married people should have all the sex they need in order to free their minds for Christian work.  I recognize that Paul expressed negative views on homosexuality, but since there is no justification of those views other than the Law of Moses, I maintain that they must be revised in light of the higher principles he taught and changes in the understanding of human sexuality today.  After all, Paul gave us the higher principle of equality between males and females in Galatians 3:28, but also made some statements about women covering their heads and remaining silent at church (1 Corinthians 11:1-16, 14:34-35).  Most churches pay little attention to these statements today because they are simply irrelevant in the twenty-first century.

The rest of the letter focuses on advice from the authors in order to ensure proper pastoral care for the LBGTQ membership while keeping the doctrine of the Catholic Church uncompromised.

On January 7, 2022, it was reported in the Washington Post that “Pope Francis has sent an encouraging letter to an American nun thanking her for her 50 years of ministry to LGBTQ Catholics, more than two decades after she was investigated and censured by the Vatican for her work.”  In particular, he thanked her for dealing with LBGTQ people with closeness, compassion and tenderness.

This may only be an expression of the pope’s feelings on pastoral care for LBGTQ Catholics, rather than an indication of change on the horizon.  However, the article reports the reaction of a well-known Catholic priest to the news:

“The Rev. James Martin, a New York City-based priest known for his ministry affirming LGBTQ Catholics, said he has received a few letters from Pope Francis but made one of them public in July 2021. Gramick’s letter, he said, is significant because she has been censured by the Vatican.

‘For most LGBTQ Catholics, Sister Jeannine is a real hero, so they’ll be delighted. They’ll rightly see this as one of Pope Francis’s steps forward,’ Martin said. ‘He doesn’t change church teaching on this but take steps … added up, all the steps, we’ve come a long way.’”

Only 5 days later, the Associated Press reported that “Pope Francis took the first step Monday to reorganize the Vatican’s powerful doctrine office, removing the No. 2 official widely believed responsible for a controversial document barring Catholic Church blessings for same-sex couples because God ‘cannot bless sin.’”

Separately, there is an effort led by German bishops to reform various aspects of the Catholic Church, including the treatment of LBGTQ membership.  Obviously, such an initiative will not be welcomed by the conservative leaders who have been in charge of Catholic doctrine.  It is hard to tell whether these new developments will have an impact in the coming years.