At the beginning of the 1970s, confronted by a multitude of new proposals by very liberal pastors, church hierarchy and bishops attempted to settle on clear positions regarding homosexuality once and for all. The American Episcopal Conference was the first group to accomplish this, with a fifteen-page document entitled
Guiding Principles for Confessors Regarding Homosexuality
. The paper states that homosexuality is contrary to the procreative objective of human sexuality (which was Thomas Aquinas’s argument during the Middle Ages) as well as contrary to marriage, which it defined as being “the expression of reciprocal love between husband and wife” (a more recent argument, as it can be found in Second Vatican Council texts). The views remain traditional and reveal nothing new. Yet there is another element that can be construed as positive: the document “encourages homosexual friendships,” but on the condition that they remain “sexually non-active.” In other words, permanent continence remains the only proposed solution for the homosexual problem. Continence is a form of abstinence that is regularly imposed by the Church; it is either temporary (at certain periods of the year, in the case of married couples) or permanent, but always chosen (such as by monks and priests). This type of sacrifice is also one of the most certain ways for the faithful to be free of sin and attain Heaven. Just as Christ, the faithful must suffer in order to pay for their sins. According to the Church, homosexuals are only offered a life of suffering, a permanent continence, which will lead to their ultimate salvation. (Other Episcopal Conferences only served to confirm the proposals put forward by the American Conference.)
In fact, if homosexual followers wish to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church to the letter, they have two possibilities from which to choose: conversion to heterosexuality, or permanent continence. In recent years, certain American sects have attempted to medically prove the possibility of “becoming heterosexual,” but the Catholic Church, being perhaps more realistic, recognizes the definitive homosexual orientation of certain individuals. The second option, permanent continence, is perfectly compatible with traditional Christian ideology, which teaches that the body is loathsome, and that suffering leads to redemption. According to theologian John McNeill, the adoption of these ideas by gay individuals can only lead to
self-hatred
: of one’s body, desires, and identity. He concludes that “no other single group of human beings has ever been the object of injustice, persecution and suffering” as have homosexuals, and that “even if it is not responsible, the Church carries its share of responsibility for this situation.”
The
Dictionnaire critique de théologie
(
Encyclopedia of Christian Theology
) offers a contemporary look at theological issues which at times only serves to confirm that certain things have not changed. Contributor Michael Banner, in his essay “Sexual (Ethic),” concludes by asking those who defend homosexuality, whether based on
anthropology
or a particular idea of creation, why they do not take sexual differentiation or the necessary split between the sexes, into account, and how their position relates to the teachings of the Bible. Thus, the initial question is more of an accusation: though homosexuals have suffered from centuries of social and religious persecution—persecution that was often initiated by the Church—they are still challenged to explain and defend themselves. The reference to anthropology tends to deny them any right to conceive of humanity in any way other than our relation to God, a relation that is defined solely by the Church itself. Finally, the terms “creation,” “sexual
differences
,” and “Bible” refer both to the condemnations in Scripture and the idea of the “unnatural.”
From this we can see that there has been little evolution in analysis, and that the same homophobic views are reaffirmed. The whole of these arguments rests on two prejudicial principles. On one hand, each time the Catholic Church refers to homosexuals, the remarks are, to the letter, homophobic, as shown in biblical and theological declarations, condemnations, or writings. The second principle, which is more general, holds to the Church’s hegemonic position, which proposes a system of totalitarian thought: its oppression of homosexuals is based on the belief that it is necessary in order to maintain not only the stability of the
family
, but social equilibrium itself. These, like all stereotypes, are false. It is unbelievable that homosexuals exercise such a strong influence on humanity, or even that the Church and the “traditional family” are so weak as to be destabilized by such a small minority. Furthermore, such ideas contradict the superiority complex that stems from the belief in Divine selection (Christians being confident that they are the bearers of truth).
A final form of Church homophobia can be identified in the oft-mentioned sentiment of compassion and
tolerance
. Both result from the same superiority complex; compassion implies that the other, i.e. the homosexual, is suffering in his state, which remains to be proven. One is not necessarily unhappy being homosexual per se, but can be as a result of this negative attitude. Compassion also implies a position of superiority in the view that the homosexual is unhappy, so one must understand him in his suffering; not only is the other (the homosexual) judged as being burdened, but that he needs to be consoled by someone stronger. The same psychological mechanism also comes into play with regard to the question of tolerance. By tolerating someone, one is judging him to be out of place; further, that he has not adapted to the world around him, but, despite everything, one allows him to live in it. The 1975
Persona humana
declaration by the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith speaks of “social maladjustment.” In this, tolerance tends to diminish the other, looking down at him from an overbearing and superior point of view.
In fact, the Church has always tended to define homosexuals as incomplete individuals.
Persona humana
describes them as being blocked “by a sort of innate instinct or pathological constitution that is judged to be incurable,” incapable of having sincere relationships and experiencing true love. Homosexual relationships are irremediably condemned to failure because they inherently “lack the integral sense of mutual giving and the context of true love.” In this, we can recognize theories stemming from Freudian
psychoanalysis
which postulate that the ultimate form of human sexuality is heterosexual, homosexuality being a transitional state to be outgrown if one is to know complete psychological development.
In short, the present-day Catholic Church has continued its homophobic discourse, notably to justify its refusal to support
decriminalization
of homosexuality (for example, in Eastern Europe during the 1990s) or to recognize gay marriage or
parenting
. In addition to the traditional referencing of biblical texts and theologians from Antiquity and the Middle Ages, the Church bases its views on
psychological
, psychoanalytical, anthropological, or
sociological
studies. Likewise, its superiority complex, borne of its vocation to save families and all of humanity, helps it to arrive at determinations that are inevitably homophobic. Their moral intolerance is all the more dangerous in that it is now not only based on religious reasons but also on sciences that were
a priori
unknown and which it interprets unilaterally. Thus, it adds a pseudo-scientific aspect to a homophobia that has historically been founded on moral and religious principles.
—
Thierry Revol
Alberigo, Giuseppe, ed.
Conciles oecuméniques
. Vol. II-2: “Les décrets.” Paris: Le Cerf, 1994.
Baile, Derrick Sherwin.
Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition
. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1955.
Boswell, John.
Christianisme, tolérance sociale et homosexualité
. Paris: Gallimard, 1985. [Published in the US as
Homosexuality, Intolerance, and Christianity
. New York: Scholarship Committee, Gay Academic Union, 1981.]
“La Condition homosexuelle,”
Lumière et Vie,
no. 47 (1980).
Congrégation pour la doctrine de la foi. “Au sujet des propositions de loi sur la non-discrimination des personnes homosexuelles.” In
La Documentation catholique,
1992. [Published in English as “Some Considerations Concerning the Response to Legislative Proposals on Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Persons.” By The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, The Roman Curia (July 23, 1992).]
———.
Lettre aux évêques de l’Église catholique sur l’attention pastorale à apporter aux personnes homosexuelles
. Paris: Téqui, 1986. [Published in English as “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons.” By The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, The Roman Curia (October 1, 1986).]
———. “
Persona humana
. Déclaration sur quelques questions d’éthique sexuelle”. In
La Documentation catholique,
1976. [Published in English as “
Persona Humana
: Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics.” By The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, The Roman Curia (1975).]
Demur, Christian, and Denis Müller.
L’Homosexualité, un dialogue théologique
. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1992.
Furey, Pat, and Jeanine Grammick, eds.
The Vatican and Homosexuality
. New York: Crossroad, 1988.
Gilbert, Maurice. “La Bible et l’homosexualité,”
Nouvelle Revue de théologie,
no. 109 (1987).
Grammick, Jeanine, ed.
Homosexuality in the Priesthood and the Religious Life
. New York: Crossroad, 1989.
Hasbany, Richard, ed.
Homosexuality and Religion
. New York: Harrington Park Press, 1989.
Jordan, Mark.
The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology
. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1997.
Lacoste, Jean-Yves, ed.
Dictionnaire critique de théologie
. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1998. [Published in the US as
Encyclopedia of Christian Theology
. New York: Routledge, 2005.]
Lever, Maurice.
Les Bûchers de Sodome
. Paris: Fayard, 1985.
“La Marée rose,”
Permanences,
no. 340 (1997).
McNeill, John.
L’Eglise et l’homosexuel, un plaidoyer
. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1982.
———.
Taking a Chance on God: Liberating Theology for Gays, Lesbians and Their Lovers, Families, and Friends
. Boston: Beacon Press, 1988.
Melton, Gordon.
The Churches Speak on Homosexuality
. Detroit: Gale Research, 1991.
Mott, Luiz.
Escravidào, homossexualidade e Demonologia
. Sao Paolo: Editora Icône, 1988.
Oraison, Marc.
La Question homosexuelle
. Paris: Le Seuil, 1975. [Published in the US as
The Homosexual Question
. New York: Harper & Row, 1977.]
Seow, Choon-Leong, ed.
Homosexuality and the Christian Community
. Louisville: Westminster Hohn Know Press, 1996.
Spong, John Selby.
Living in Sin? A Bishop Rethinks Human Sexuality
. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988.
Thévenot Xavier.
Homosexualités masculines et morale chrétienne
. Paris: Le Cerf, 1985.
Tigert, Lean McCall.
Coming Out While Staying In: Struggles and Celebrations of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals in the Church
. Cleveland: United Church Press, 1996.
Wolf, James.
Gay Priests
. New York: Harper & Row, 1989.
—Abnormal; Against Nature; Bible, the; Catholic Church, the; Damien, Peter; Debauchery; Ex-Gay; Family; Heresy; Inquisition; Judaism; Marriage; Orthodoxy (Christian); Paul (of Tarsus); Philosophy; Protestantism; Rhetoric; Sterility; Tolerance; Vice.
TOLERANCE
The worst thing about Christine
Boutin
, the French politician who became famous in 1998 for opposing the PaCS (Pacte civil de solidarité; Civil solidarity pact) domestic partnership plan in her country, was that she was sincere when she told gays and lesbians, “I love you.” It has been common, particularly from Christian perspectives, for the love of another to appear as the basis for complete intolerance. And cries of “Burn the fags!” heard during the
anti-PaCS
demonstrations were doubtlessly the consequences of such love. Beware of those who love you.
This love/hate intolerance developed, at least in the Catholic West, under the
Inquisition
and became more refined during the Reformation, and today, it informs religious conservative attitudes toward sexual freedom as much as it did toward religious freedom in the past. Moreover, this system is summarized in two syllogisms by seventeenth-century French bishop Jacques-Benigne Bossnet: in the first, truth is one, and tolerance supposes plurality. Tolerance, therefore, undermines the foundations of truth. In the second, charity requires concern for the salvation of others who are damned through sin; therefore, tolerating the sins of others shows a severe lack of charity. In other words, tolerance of sin is worse than sin itself because sin is not only accepted, but also to a certain extent, legitimized and encouraged. To this degree, Nietzsche’s words regarding “free-thinkers” still hold true for gays and lesbians today: “It is not their charity, but rather the impotence of their charity that has stopped modern-day Christians from burning us.”
From this perspective, it is certain that gay liberation has followed, like a shadow, the historical and geographical growth of tolerance and the decline of the political power of the religions preaching salvation. Thus, that the defense of tolerance is not just a rearguard fight, at least in our liberal societies, which have at least succeeded in preventing the actions of religious intolerance.
At least three notable historical events have served to reveal the problematics underlying even the most sincere statements regarding tolerance. The first is
Stonewall
and its affirmation of gay pride, and a certain inalienable truth about one’s sexual identity: it is difficult to reconcile such an affirmation with the inherent skepticism that accompanies the tolerance of the Enlightenment, as summarized by Voltaire: “We are all filled with weaknesses and mistakes; let us forgive each other our stupidities, it is Nature’s first law.” In light of this view, gay pride is dependent on the notion that gays or lesbians display no “weakness,” “error,” or “stupidity.” The fight for identity, for the right to be openly gay or lesbian or simply to sweetly touch each other in public, is a fight for truth. It is not a question of being tolerated by mainstream society, but rather recognized, which in many regards constitutes a radically opposite demand. But one interpretation of this idea, disguised as tolerance, has an obvious homophobic
rhetoric
that is even internalized by some gays and lesbians:“We would like to accept homosexuals, but on the condition that they not be too obvious, that they be as discreet as possible, that they act one way, but not another.” This conditional acceptance was clearly summarized by France’s National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen when he asserted that, “The National Front includes homosexuals,
but
not queens,” or Christine Boutin, when she declared that, “The right to homosexuality … does not automatically legitimize gay proselytism.” In this way, homophobic tolerance follows a “yes, but” reasoning.