The Bible and homosexuality
When the issues of slavery and segregation were dividing our nation at different points of our history, advocates quoted the Bible as justification for both, as well as for racial inequality (usually Genesis 9:25-27). In the Book of Joshua, God commands the Hebrews to wipe out every living thing in Jericho after the walls collapse (Josh 6:21), implying a biblical sanctioning of genocide and ethnic cleansing. The examples of these passages, however, are not consistent throughout the Scriptures and must be taken in context to be understood correctly.
Fortunately biblical quotation does not appear to be prominent among supporters of abortion. However, other advocates of values and lifestyles contrary to Judeo-Christian teaching have taken up the practice of turning to the Holy Scriptures for defense.
A recent skit, featuring Hollywood stars like Jack Black and John C. Reilly, mocks the biblical disapproval of homosexuality (Lev 18:22) by comparing it to the biblical directive against eating shellfish (Lev 11:9, Deut 14:9-10). The skit implies either that those who eat shrimp are as guilty of being an “abomination” as those who engage in the homosexual act, or that, like the eating of shrimp, the homosexual act is no longer considered sinful. (I point out that, in the biblical text, shellfish are considered “loathsome” while the homosexual act is considered an “abomination.”) As the issue of “gay marriage” has divided our state with the passage of and legal battles surrounding Proposition 8, this comparison has become a frequent biblical defense of the homosexual lifestyle.
In answer to this comparison it must be pointed out that in the New Testament, Jesus renders all foods clean (Matt 15:10-20, Mark 7:15, 18b-23), while still maintaining that other acts, including sexual immorality, render a person unclean because these acts are generated from within. This is re-enforced when Peter, in a vision of a canopy filled with “unclean” foods, hears the declaration, “what God has purified you are not to call unclean” (Acts 10:15). Following the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem, the Apostles declare to be the will of the Holy Spirit that some traditional Jewish observances, including some dietary laws, will no longer be observed as a mandate. Other laws, however, are maintained by the apostolic council, “namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals, and from illicit sexual union” (Acts 18:29). The Apostles declare, “You will be well advised to avoid these things.” Hence, as expressed in the Bible, while several dietary laws, such as the eating of shellfish, are relaxed, other standards, including those regarding sexual morality (inclusive of the homosexual act) are maintained.
As we have recently completed a year dedicated to St. Paul, it is worthwhile noting that the moral exclusion of illicit sexual activity is also present in the Pauline writings, maintaining the consistent biblical teaching regarding sexual immorality (1 Cor 6:9-10; Gal 5:18-21; Eph 5:5-7). Ephesians, in fact, relates these sins to idolatry; hence sexual immorality is not a social sin, but rather a sin of worship! Galatians (in a popular passage with protesters against homosexuality) presents a whole list of offenses alongside sexual immorality, placing “idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these” with “fornication, impurity [and] licentiousness.” (Therefore, if sexual sin is the only issue on this list with which the homosexual community struggles, I dare say they are doing better than most!)
It must be pointed out that nowhere does the Bible advocate homophobia or violence against homosexuals. Even the law in Leviticus 20:13, declaring the homosexual act a capital offense, must be understood in the context of Old Testament ethics, much of which is expressed in a black and white choice: Life and Death (Deut 30:15-20). Any act – like murder (Exod 21:12) – that was understood as choosing death over life resulted in the penalty of death. This included cursing (or wishing death upon) one’s parents (from whom you received life) (Lev 20:9), sacrificing against the God of Life (Lev 20:2), and any sexual union that violates the family (nurturer of life) or the purpose of sexuality (the procreation of life) (Lev 20:9-16). Such sins constituted a choice and therefore merit of death. With the development over time of our understanding of human anthropology and anatomy, as well as growth in our spiritual relationship with God and His commands (not the least of which are the life and teachings of Jesus Christ), while the reasons for these prohibitions and the penalties resulting from them may have changed, the prohibition has remained consistent.
Given all of this, where do we go from here? To begin with, one should appreciate the importance of developing at least a working knowledge of Scripture so as to understand parts of it in proper context and recognize developments and consistencies throughout; as well as the fallacy of proof-texting with specific single passages in order to support a particular social, political or moral position. As to the issue of the homosexual act, we already know what the Church teaches, that the teaching has both a biblical and traditional foundation, and that the teaching is consistent and unchanging. We do not need to repeat it over and over again as a point of moral one-upmanship of one group against another, nor should we descend into permissiveness in the name of “tolerance,” or moral-leniency in the name of “compassion.”
Our call is to be true, not fashionable; to be strong in our convictions, morals and standards, not apologetic because of dissent or opposition; to be consistent in maintaining traditional moral teaching, not to misquote the Holy Scriptures so as to be politically correct or to bow to the current prevailing moral wind. As a community of faith, since all of us one way or another engage in activity that puts us at risk of losing the Kingdom of God (Gal 5:18-21), we are called to walk together as we struggle to overcome whatever keeps us from authentically embracing and living values of the Gospel, whatever that struggle may entail for each of us.
Father William Nicholas is parochial vicar at Our Lady of Loretto Parish in Novato. Ordained in 2001, he also has served at Nativity Parish in Menlo Park and St. Cecilia Parish in San Francisco. Visit his website at www.frwcnicholas.com.
By Father William Nicholas
From October 16, 2009 issue of Catholic San Francisco.
