Bill Hunt is one of many Catholic theologians who believe that sexual doctrines need to be changed - including those dealing with same-sex relationships. As a “peritus” (theological expert), and having taught a graduate theology course in sexual ethics, he has substantial pedigree in the field, and views that deserve to be taken seriously. At Progressive Catholic Voice, his article ”Homosexual Relationships: Another Look” presents his case. It’s well worth reading in full (follow the link), but as it’s a little lengthy, I offer here an outline, followed by a short thought of my own.

 

The Biblical Condemnation of Homosexuality

Unlike many others, he does not challenge the traditional view on the biblical evidence. He accepts the prohibition on male - male sexual activity in Leviticus, noting that by its location in the Torah, and by invoking the death penalty, it is “on a par with” the ten commandments. The prohibition carries particular authority, as it is repeated in the New Testament, in Paul’s letter to the Romans. (However, he does not refer to the Genesis story of Sodom, which probably refers to violent rape or to a failure of hospitality, not to homosexuality, nor does he refer to the two Pauline texts based the Greek words “arsenekotoi” and “malakoi”, for which the traditional translation as sodomites or homosexuals is controversial). Although he agrees that Jesus did not say anything against homosexuality, he makes the important point that he also said nothing directly to contradict this important Jewish prohibition.

He also accepts that homosexuality was clearly condemned by Thomas Aquinas as “unnatural”.

However, he asserts that this does not necessarily mean that the biblical and medieval rules should still apply today. To reach this conclusion, he says we need to consider the question in a developmental perspective, considering the historical and cultural context, and considering how society and conditions have changed since biblical times. To illustrate, he draws a parallel with usury, which was even more strongly condemned in scripture and church tradition.

The Example of Usury

Hunt observes that there are only half a dozen biblical texts that appear to clearly condemn homosexual acts - and only the two from Leviticus, and one from Romans, which have not been fiercely challenged by modern scholars as mistranslated or misinterpreted. In contrast, there are “more than a dozen” texts from the Hebrew Bible (in Exodus, Leviticus, Ezekiel and Psalms) which condemn taking any interest at all on a loan. Unlike the case of homosexuality, on which Jesus was silent, the words “Lend expecting nothing back” in Luke were interpreted as condemning usury. Aquinas condemned it under the same rationale he did homosexuality, as being “unnatural”, and although no ecumenical council of the church ever condemned homosexual acts, usury was the ecumenical Council of Vienne (1312) . Yet the Church today no longer condemns charging interest. (We could add that the Vatican itself uses the practice, through the Vatican bank and in its own financial dealings the world over).

To understand why what once so clearly condemned is now widely accepted without questioning, Hunt explains, we need to consider the historical changes over two millenia in the understanding of the nature of money. In Biblical times, money was seen as inert, simply a medium of exchange with no intrinsic value. To charge interest was seen as taking advantage of the borrower’s poverty, and in an overwhelmingly agrarian society, there was widespread suspicion of merchants and traders. However, as economic conditions evolved, perceptions of the role of money, and of those using it for business purposes, evolved. People came to see that money filled an important and useful economic purpose in financing business enterprises, and so came to appreciate that charging a fair rate for the use of money, was reasonable. The emphasis changed, from condemnation of charging any interest at all, to condemnation of charging an excessive rate.

Biblical Understanding of Homosexuality: Honor, Reproductivity, and Purity

To assess whether changing conditions and understanding of homosexuality justify a change in doctrine, Hunt continues by an exploration not of the fact of biblical and Church condemnation, but of the reasons behind it. He summarizes the view of modern Biblical scholars as identifying three strands in the Biblical rationale: the concept of honour, the emphasis on reproducing the population, and the importance of the Jewish purity code. None of these continue to be applicable to modern Christians. Honour was seen as an essentially masculine attribute in a patriarchal society, requiring men to take dominant roles in all things - including sexual intercourse. The objection to sex between men was that it required one partner to take a woman’s part, so dishonouring himself and being dishonoured by his partner. Hunt describes the importance of reproductivity as a Jewish cultural expectation that sons would reproduce to continue their father’s line for posterity. We could add that in an overwhelmingly agrarian society simple family survival demanded plentiful farm labour that children could supply. As Countryman and others have shown, the Biblical condemnation is closely tied up with the Jewish purity code, which also includes restrictions on diet and clothing. Hunt points out that the importance of the purity code lay in its demonstration of the Jewish people as a race set apart from others, and free of the idolatry that they associated with their neighbours.

We no longer see women as inherently inferior to men, nor do we see their roles as dishonourable ones. In an urbanized, industrial world where overpopulation is a greater threat than underpopulation, that requirement no longer applies. Like the requirement of circumcision, the purity code restrictions are freely ignored by Christians, as not applicable to Gentiles.

Questions Raised by the Behavior of Jesus

For Christians, the message of Jesus is of vastly greater importance than the Jewish purity code. We know that he had nothing directly to say about homosexuality, so Hunt attempts to infer what Jesus might have thought about the matter, from his more easily discernible views on the three reasons behind the traditional Jewish prohibition - (male) honour, reproduction, and purity.

It is clear from the Gospels that Jesus simply did not treat women with the same disdain that was usual in Jewish society, radically undercutting the traditional distinctions and roles between the sexes, including them among his disciples and companions, talking and dining freely with them, and including them in serious discussions of religion. In denying the value of biological family (encouraging his disciples to leave their families behind to follow him), he radically undermined the importance of reproduction. In both words and example, he frequently rejected automatic compliance with the purity code.

Conclusion

Hunt concludes:

The biblical condemnation of male same sex sexual activity was based on ancient cultural presumptions of honor, reproductivity, and purity. The ministry and teaching of Jesus radically undercut those presuppositions. Today we no longer take it for granted that men are superior to women, that the main purpose of sexual activity is to beget male children to carry on one’s father’s name, or that all purity rules are mandatory.

What is the status of a moral condemnation when its cultural underpinnings have been removed? Given the “Copernican” revolution in our understanding of human sexuality during the past century, and given the radically changed circumstances of our time, it seems that the blanket condemnation of every kind of homosexual activity goes too far.

Just as over the centuries the Church found a way to distinguish between different kinds of interest-taking, so also it seems that contemporary Christians are in a position to review the condemnation of homosexual activity found in the biblical passages and to distinguish violent, exploitative sexual activities from those that are loving, adult, and free. This enables us to see homosexual relationships in a positive light and even envisage same gender unions blessed by the Church.

We could add to Hunt’s analysis the observation that Aquinas’ dismissal of homosexuality as “unnatural” has been shown by modern understanding of sexuality to be as flawed as his understanding that charging interest on money is unnatural. In precisely the same way that the rejection of all interest on loans has given way to a consideration of the nature of that interest, we need to move from an automatic rejection of all same - sex genital acts, to one which takes into account the nature of those acts - and in particular, the nature of the relationships in which they take place.

This is an exploration receiving widespread attention in many Protestant denominations, which are engaging in extensive serious investigations on the subject, grappling with the issues of recognition for openly LGBT clergy, and honouring their relationships in a manner comparable to those of their heterosexual colleagues. Similarly, they are facing up to the challenges of recognizing and honouring the relationships of all their members without discrimination, whether by blessings for civil unions, or by full marriage ceremonies.

The tragedy for the Catholic Church is that although most ordinary Catholics in fact do not agree with Vatican doctrine on same - sex relationships (or on much of the rest of the sexual rule-book), and many or most moral theologians, like Bill Hunt, agree that the teaching must change to accommodate changed social conditions and understanding of sexuality, the Vatican insistence that no sexual activity not open to procreation can be licit, coupled with their intolerance of any dissenting views, simply stifles open, honest discussion - as with Professor Tina Beattie, who had a planned lecture in Clifton diocese cancelled simply because she was a co-signatory to a public letter stating that it is reasonable for Catholics, in good conscience, to disagree with the bishops on gay marriage.

The problem is that as long as we avoid all discussion on the issue, we cannot engage with the really important questions - just what kinds of activities, in what kinds or relationships, are acceptable, and how can we as a faith community honour those relationships? Unless and until we do engage in those questions, there is a real danger that LGBT Catholics, especially young people, will respond by simply leaving the Church, possibly rejecting the need for any kind of restrictions on sexual behaviour - or attempt to remain in it, embracing the dangers of the closet, and the many dangers that entails, for mental and physical health.

I close with a pertinent quotation from the feminist theologian, Sister Teresa Forcades, found at Catholic Anarchy

Sister Teresa Forcades on the expression of doubt

No Roman Catholic—whether a theologian or not—should be afraid to publicly express reasonable doubt about a point of doctrine, with the trust and freedom that belongs to the children of God, as one who feels and knows that he or she is among family, without fear of being denounced or discredited. To express one’s doubt in a prudent and reasonable manner is a sign of loyalty and trust. It is also a sign of humility and it is taking seriously one’s own membership in the Church and the co-responsibility that it entails.

– Sister Teresa Forcades

Related articles

• Bible and Homosexuality: Does it Matter?
• Queer Lessons in Cardinal Martini’s Warning From the Grave
• The Grace of Queer Theory (and Queer Theology)
• Gays for Jesus: Catholic and Evangelical
• Gay Marriage: Scottish (and other) Bishops, and the Catholic Backlash
• Gay Marriage: Catholic Diversity Expressed in England and Wales
• The Grace of Queer Theory (and Queer Theology)

• A Spirit of Defiance (thewildreed.blogspot.com)
• The Last Living American Bishop Who Was At VII—And My Personal Hero (enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com)
• Can we talk about homosexuality? (commonwealmagazine.org)