In this particular case I am pleased to present an essay by my own father, Dr. Philip Blosser, titled "Sex in the City of God: Why God Made Sex and Marriage".

When he is not otherwise blogging as The Pertinacious Papist, Dr. Blosser teaches philosophy at at Lenoir-Rhyne College in North Carolina, and is an associate of the Center for Theology. Among Dr. Blosser's published works are Scheler's Critique of Kant's Ethics, a study which employed the scholarship of our late philosopher-priest Pope John Paul II.

This website was also privileged to reprint his essay "The Kasper-Ratzinger Debate and the State of the Church", published in the New Oxford Review (April 2002), and "War and the Eclipse of Moral Reason", presented at the Tenth Annual Aquinas/Luther Conference held October 24-26, 2002 at Lenoir-Rhyne College.

"Sex in the City of God" was published in The Lutheran Forum in 2005, and appears here in its original form by permission of the author, who retains the copyright.

Labels: sexuality

I am addressing Nathan's response to my post "What about Leviticus and Paul?".

Is the Levitical Holiness Code Still Binding?

Responding to what I had believed to be a rather clear presentation of what Leviticus meant by its prohibition of homosexuality, Nathan repeats his argument:

In The Bible and Homosexual Practice: An Overview of Some Issues", Robert A. Gagnon explains why we can't discount the laws of Leviticus:

Nathan is treading on thin ice if this is his argument. Joe Dallas carries the argument to its logical conclusion: "if the practices in Leviticus 18 & 20 are condemned because of their association with idolatry, it logically followed that they would be permissable if committed apart from adultery." Homosexuality is mentioned in the same context as incest, adultery, bestiality and child sacrifice -- to suggest that these can be discarded because they are 'merely' laws of ritual purity abrogated by the Church is simply preposterous.

Nathan tries a different strategy:

The moral tradition of Christianity retained the prescriptions against other sins mentioned in Leviticus as well (adultery, incest, beastiality) -- the fact that the Church no longer applies or recommends he penalties doesn't negate the fact that it regards such practices as immmoral.

Nathan again reiterates:

The Holiness Code of Leviticus specifies a variety of laws governing a wide range of behavior, not all of which is on the same level. Israel's reason for prohibiting homosexuality along with other acts of sexual immorality transcend the relationship to idolatry, paganism, or ritual cleanliness. As Gordon J. Wenham had shown ("The Old Testament Attitude to Homosexuality"): "it seems most likely that Israel's repudiation of homosexual intercourse arises out of its doctrine of creation. God created humanity in two sexes, so that they could be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth."

Sexual complementarity and teleological purpose according to Genesis carry more weight here than Nathan acknowledges. This is the basis for both the Jewish and Christian objection to homosexuality. But we'll get into that in my final post.

Do the Letters of St. Paul Prohibit Homosexual Behavior?

Regarding the proper interpretation of Romans 1:27-27, Nathan responds by quoting a rather lengthy passage from Dr. Rembert Truluck (Six Bible Passages).

Truluck begins by saying that "Romans 1:26-27 contains some words used only here by Paul. Familiar words are used here in unusual ways. The passage is very difficult to translate." I can only wonder: Difficulty translating for Truluck? or scripture scholars in general? -- Some of the scholars I've read, Robert A. Gagnon especially, demonstrates great proficiency at translation and interpretation of St. Paul. But I'll let you be the judge. First, let's look at the passage:

Dr. Truluck asserts that verse 25 is a clear denunciation of idol worship, and that as Paul wrote from Corinth, he was probably referring to one of the more prominent of the thousand religions in that city at the time: the fertility cult of Aphrodite, worship of Apollo, or the Delphi Oracle across the bay. Then he gets down to business:

Truluck's argument is also made by William Countryman, who Thomas Schmidt critiques in Straight & Narrow:

What about Truluck's claim that "We do not know the meaning of "burn" [ekkaio] in 1:27, because Paul never used this particular word anywhere else, and its origin is uncertain"? According to Schmidt, "this imagery has a sinful connotation that Paul employs similarly in 1 Corinthians 7:9 (by means of a different verb, pyroo)." Schmidt offers three other examples of association of fire imagery with self-destruction by sexual sin: two passages from Philo (De Gigantibus 34 and De Decalogo 49) and Sirach 23:16 ("For burning passion is a blazing fire, not to be quenched till it burns itself out"). So while Paul did not use the exact word, it is certainly not the first time fire-imagery has been used in relation to sexual desire, and taken in the context of the entire passage the meaning is clear.

Truluck, again:

Like Truluck, William Countryman also argues for a neutral interpretation of "against nature" [para physin, in contrast to "with nature" kata physin]. According to Schmidt, although there are neutral uses of this term elsewhere in Paul, one can demonstrate that his terminology in Romans 1 fits with contemporary usage:

Schmidt goes on to cite related passages from Philo (the men of Sodom "threw off from their necks the law of nature (De Abrahamo 135) to mount males, "not respecting the common nature physin with which the active partner acts upon the passive") and the Jewish historian Josephus, who makes reference to the same-sex relations of the citizens of Elis and Thebes as para physin.

The point is that Paul's use of para physin in the particular context of Romans 1 is consistent here with that of his contemporaries, and in such cases it always has negative connotations. As mentioned in my previous post, Paul's point is that "Gentile sin, including homosexual sin, is a result of humanity's corporate rebellion against the Creator." The traditional interpretation of this passage stands: "God's judgment allows the irony of sin to play itself out; the creature's original impulse towards self-glorification ends in self-destruction. The refusal to acknowledge God as creator ends in blind distortion of the creation" (Richard B. Hays ("Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to J. Boswells Exegesis of Romans 1," Journal of Religious Ethics 14 Spring 1986).

What about the meaning of "commmitting indecent acts" in 1:27 ("committing shameful things" in the USCCB's version cited above?) Truluck contends that this is merely the term for indecency, as in 1 Corinthians 12:23 ("those parts of the body that we consider less honorable [indecent] we surround with greater honor") or 1 Corinthians 13:5 ("love does not behave indecently"). Truluck notes that in Deuteronomy 24:1 it has more serious connotations, providing grounds for divorce (if a man finds within his wife "something indecent"), but when Jesus commented on it "he did not define the term." Consequently:

The word for "indecency" in Rom: 1:27 in original Greek is aschemosyne; The Hebrew word for "indecency" is ervah, has multiple uses (nakedness, uncleanliness, improper behavior, exposed or undefended). When placed in the same context as the other terms in Romans 1: "sexual uncleanness" (akatharsia), "dishonorable/degrading passions" (pathe atimias), "contrary to nature" (para physin), the connotations are clear. In his condemnation of various sexual practices in the New Testament, Paul had in mind the prohibitions of Leviticus and the Jewish moral code. Robert Gagnon asserts: "That Paul had the Levitical prohibitions partly in view is evident from intertextual echoes to Lev 18 and 20 in Rom 1:24-32." And in a footnote to this comments:

Having addressed Truluck's reading of Romans 1:26-27, I recommmend that Nathan re-think his conclusion that "St. Paul was describing something which would have been the logical result of the idolatry that he was observing around him" [and that] the passage does not seem to have a sexual connotation when examining the original Greek" -- and his motivation for appealing to such a conclusion.

Paul's use of the word arsenokoites and malakoi

As I mentioned in my previous post, the explanation for the rare use of the term arsenokoites in the New Testament (and that it cannot be found in the Greek of St. Paul's time) is because evidence suggests he coined the term himself, referring to the the prohibition against homosexual behavior in Leviticus. This has been aptly demonstrated by a number of scholars, although the discovery is attributed to David Wright.

Nathan responds:

By "other scholars" Nathan is alluding to the late John Boswell, in whom they find their source (Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality). Boswell's treatment of arsenokoites is summarized by Guenther Has of Redeemer College, Ontario ("Hermeneutical Issues in the Use of the Bible to Justify Acceptance of Homosexual Practice" Global Journal of Classical Theology Vol. 1, No. 2. February 1999). I'm going to repeat it in full, since it clarifies somewhat better than Truluck does how they arrive at the notion that St. Paul could have been referring to "prostitutes" in Corinthians 6:9 and Timothy 1:10:

David F. Wright critiqued Boswell's argument in "Homosexuals or Prostitutes: The Meaning of Arsenokoitai (1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10)," Vigiliae Christianae 38 (1984): 126-29). As the article is not available online, I will rely again on the summary of Guenther Has:

Dr. Gagnon addresses Boswell's charge in "On Boswell and "Men who lie with a male" in 1 Corinthians 6:9", in which he points out: "Boswell's arguments have not persuaded most New Testament scholars. Even a number of those supportive of homosexual practice (e.g., Dan Via, William Schoedel) accept that the terms malakoi (not malachoi, as Harwood and Porter incorrectly transliterate) and arsenokoitai collectively designate a general condemnation of male-male intercourse."

Forgive me for reiterating Wright's discovery here, but it appears Nathan has not entirely ingested it -- again, Has's summary of Wright:

Responding to the claim that there is "scant" evidence for Paul's opposition to same-sex intercourse, Dr. Gagnon mentions a list of "pro-gay" scholars who concede to the obvious, including "Gay and Lesbian Studies" author Louis Compton:

Are St. Paul's Letters Even Relevant?

Nathan had suggested that the Church's teaching on homosexuality should be revised, just as the Church revised its teaching on usury. I responded that economics was an entirely different field than sexual morality. Nathan concedes, but responds:

Nathan's point betrays an ignorance of contraception and natural family planning, but that's a whole different issue and one capably handled by Prof. Janet Smith or Christopher West's explication of John Paul II. But I've dealt with this in the first part of our discussion of "homosexuality and natural law".

Likewise, Robert Gagnon lists some difficulties with the analogy of homosexuality to slavery:

• There is no scriptural mandate to enslave others, nor does one incur a penalty for releasing slaves.
• Slavery is not grounded in pre-Fall structures.
• Israelite law put various restrictions on enslaving fellow Israelites (mandatory release dates, the right of near-kin redemption, treating as hired laborers rather than as slaves, no returning runaway slaves), while Paul in 1 Cor 7:21 and Philemon 16 regarded liberation from slavery as at least a penultimate good. The highest good, of course, is having your moral purpose in place, and nobody can take that away from you, whatever condition in life you happen to be in. It is all the better if you can be released from slavery, because then you have more free choices in your use of time -- not to do whatever you want, but to be enslaved all the more to Christ.
• In relation to the cultures of their day, the biblical stance on slavery pushed in the direction of its curtailment and eradication; as regards the biblical stance on same-sex intercourse a reverse situation was in effect, pushing in the direction of expanding and deepening the ban on same-sex intercourse. those divorced against their will -- the number of divorces and remarriages would decline dramatically, especially divorces and remarriages initiated by the husband. This is Jesus' teaching, a teaching that Jesus had to think long and hard about since it bucked the entire cultural trend, not only in the Greco-Roman Mediterranean basin generally but also in the Israel of his day. To Jesus sex mattered. The view going around today that sex did not matter for the various authors of Scripture and for Jesus has no basis in Scripture itself. In both Testaments it matters, and it matters significantly, along with idolatry and economic exploitation, a formal triad.

Nathan, again:

One can feel a "natural" inclination to do all kinds of things. Heterosexuals may feel "naturally-inclined" to seek out more than one partner. But the focus of Paul's criticism of homosexuality, as that of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is on actions, and it judges those actions to be contrary to God's vision of sexuality and the created order as articulated in Genesis.

So that ends my discussion of Leviticus and Paul (and the interpretation of the destruction of Sodom).

I'm not an expert -- as you see, I'm reliant upon the teaching and knowledge of others. I've learned a great deal about what the Jewish and Christian traditions have to say in the process.

At this point Nathan may be tempted to investigate the works of other biblical revisionists in hopes of bolstering his stance. If he does so, I would encourage him to take up Gagnon's The Bible and Homosexual Practice, which I discovered in the course of writing these posts, and -- assuming he identifies himself as a Catholic -- keep his mind open to the teaching of the Magisterium and the Catechism of the Catholic Church as well.

Labels: sexuality

In his response to my post ("Biblical Interpretation and the 'Sin of Sodom'", Nathan embraces the "hospitality" argument of Dr. Rembert Truluck ("Six Bible Passages").

As before, I will briefly state the points of Nathan's -- Dr. Rembert Truluck's -- argument followed directly by my responses.

The reference to "strange flesh" in Jude 7

According to Nathan, the term "strange flesh" found in Jude 7 used in reference to Sodom -- actually means "different flesh" in the original Greek (hetero sarkos) and is the root word for heterosexual; (homo sarkos meaning "same flesh"). Sarkos is never used in the New Testament as a word for "sex." Nathan asserts that if anything, the reference to Sodom in Jude 7 reinforces the argument that it had more to do with idolatry than anything else.

Actually, Jude 7's description of "going after different flesh" is commonly interpreted as an allusion to "angelic flesh." Let's look at the context:

Verse 6 refers to an apocryphal account in the book of Enoch in which rebellious angels had intercourse with women, and were cast out of heaven as punishment. Verse 7 compares the angels' punishment with the inhabitants of Sodom, Gommorah, and surrounding towns, who also "defiled the flesh", scorned divine authority, and reviled "angelic beings" (cf. 2 Peter 10).

This interpretation is advanced by many proponents of gay scripture interpretation, the typical argument: "one can not ASSUME that "strange flesh" means a "man going after a man", after all Lot's guests were NOT MEN but ANGELS," so I'm suprised that Nathan has omitted it. Schmidt, however, believes:

For a more thorough discussion of this text and refutation of the revisionist argument as it pertains to Jude 7, see "On Careless Exegesis and Jude 7" by Dr. Robert Gagnon.

What does it mean "to know" in the Sodom account?

According to Nathan/Truluck, the story of Sodom does not even imply sexual advances toward the angels. The Hebrew word YADA -- translated "to know" -- is used 943 times in the Old Testament and refers to any number of things (God, good and evil, people, places, etc.). Nathan continues:

Pastor P. Michael Ukleja ("Homosexuality and the Old Testament"): "the meaning of a word in a given passage is not determined solely on the basis of the number of times it is translated that way in the Bible. The context determines how it is to be translated." (surely Nathan agrees, arguing on the basis of context with respect to Ezekiel). Of the 12 times the word "yada" occurs in Genesis, 10 times it means "to have intercourse with." Given that Lot uses the phrase "to know" in a distinctly sexual sense with reference to his daughter only 3 verses later, we can infer that the same is meant by the demand of Sodom's men "to know" Lot's guests.

The obvious difficulty is that Nathan's explanation simply doesn't warrant the kind of behavior that Lot exhibits. If the men only wanted "to know" the strangers -- to interrogate them -- why did Lot beg them not to behave wickedly and, in a state of obvious panic, offer his own virgin daughters as substitutes? (That Lot does so doesn't necessarily eliminate the distinctly homosexual intent of the men of Sodom, since they adamantly refused Lot's offer of a substitute).

Writing on "Hermeneutical Issues in the Bible to Justify Homosexual Practice", Guenther Has of Redeemer College, Ontario, also notes another incident in the bible:

Ezekiel and the Prophets

Nathan reiterates his position that Ezekiel's reference to Sodom did not have sexual connotations because the overal aim of Ezekial 16 is a condemnation of idolatry. Where Ezekial refers to Sodom, he does so in a non-sexual manner and is quite specific that Sodom's crime (according to Ezekiel) was their refusal to aid the poor and needy (Ezek 16:49).

To my charge that the next verse mentioned Sodom's crime as well ("they became haughty and committed abominable crimes in my presence") Nathan responds:

Responding to a similar charge made by Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, Robert Gagnon asserts Ezekiel's familiarity with the Holiness Code (Lev 17-24) and states that: "When Ezekiel 16:49-50 describes the sin of Sodom as "not aiding the poor and needy" and "committing an abomination," it refers to two different offenses, as the list of vices in Ezekiel 18:12 makes clear when it distinguishes these two phrases."

As we noted, the destruction of Sodom was employed as the chief example of God's judgement and punishment upon sinners. Accordingly, Schmidt's explanation that later writers generalized from a particular offense -- "in order to show the applicability of judgement on Sodom to people who did not do precisely what the Sodomites did, [as in] Jeremiah 49:18, which compares Jerusalem to Sodom but specifies only adultery as sexual sin" -- still stands. Acknowledging Nathan's point that the focus of Chapter 16 is on idolatry, it has not been disproven that this was Ezekiel's method.

Can one argue for multiple reasons why Sodom was destroyed? -- Certainly. Nathan's argument is partially correct in this sense: homosexuality may very well be a part, or symptom, of the wickedness of its inhabitants. But it is impossible to deny in the face of the evidence the sexual nature of the crimes the citizens of Sodom intended to commit against the strangers under Lot's protection. Gordon J. Wendham explains how one can apply both readings to the biblical story:

Final thoughts on the Scriptural Interpretation of Sodom

• To take general references to Sodom from later biblical sources, isolate them from other sources which do relate Sodom to a specifically sexual offense, and then attempt to reason back to the original account that the general references "prove" that the men of Sodom did not commit a sexual offense, or that homosexuality had nothing to do with Sodom's destruction, strikes me as a very dubious way of reasoning.
• The account of Sodom may be a part but is by no means the fundamental source for the condemnation of homosexuality in Jewish and Christian tradition: for that one must look at the creation account in Genesis and the prohibitions in Leviticus, and St. Paul's reliance on Leviticus and Jewish tradition in the New Testament.
• The story of Sodom, as Dr. Gagnon asserts, must be read contextually -- taking into account the repudiation of homosexual acts in biblical Judaism as being contrary to the Divine will. To close with a citation from Dr. Robert Gagnon:
  As it is, the case for an antihomosex reading of the Yahwist's Sodom narrative is overwhelming. It is a "kitchen sink" story of Canaanite depravity: not just about rape, but about gang rape as severe inhospitality to travelers seeking temporary lodging; and not just about this but about treating males not as males but as though they were females with an orifice for male penetration. That male-male intercourse per se is a significant compounding factor in the story is evident from many considerations:

  • The Yahwist's story of the creation of woman in Genesis 2:18-24 and its clear portrayal of woman as the one and only sexual "counterpart" for man.
  • The Yahwist's story of Ham's incestuous, same-sex rape of Noah in Genesis 9:20-27, with its ideological links to the laws against (non-coercive) incest and male-male intercourse in Leviticus 18.
  • The probable antihomosex interpretations of the Sodom story in Ezekiel 16:49-50 (Ezekiel interprets the Sodom narrative through the lens of Holiness Code or something very much like it) and in Jude 7 and 2 Peter 2:7, 10, to say nothing of a number of antihomosex interpretations in early Judaism.
  • The parallel story of the Levite at Gibeah in Judges 19:22-25, told by a narrator (the "Deuteronomistic Historian") who elsewhere abhors the receptive homoerotic associations of the qedeshim (literally, "holy ones," but referring to "homosexual cult prostitutes").
  • The absolute prohibitions against male-male intercourse in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.
  • The ancient Near Eastern context, which often disparages males who willingly play the role of females in sexual intercourse.
  • The implications of the rest of the Old Testament canon, which in any material dealing with sexual relations always presumes the sole and exclusive legitimacy of heterosexual unions.

  For the documentation behind the claims made above, I refer readers to The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 43-157 (esp. 63-110) and Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views, 56-68.

  I'll have to take Gagnon's word for it, since he's a biblical scholar and I'm not. Since his has received postive recognition by biblical scholars from every denomination (a truly ecumenical endorsement), praised as a "definitive exegetical treatment [of the Bible and homosexuality]."

Labels: sexuality

What About the Natural Law?

The last argument Nathan employs to argue for the repeal of traditional Christian prohibition against homosexual acts pertains to natural law. Once again, I'll introduce Nathan's argument followed directly by my response.

According to Nathan:

The story of the destruction of Sodom, which I have dealt with in the first post of this discussion, is extraneous to Judaism's rationale for prohibiting homosexuality. According to our last discussion of Leviticus and St. Paul, the general prohibition of homosexuality in Leviticus, set in between prohibitions of adultery, incest and bestiality, was in all likelihood grounded in the Genesis creation account.

Dr. Robert Gagnon explains ("The Bible and Homosexual Practice: An Overview of Some Issues"):

According to Dr. Gagnon, the biblical emphasis on the complementarity of the male and female sexes is not something one can easily dismiss:

Those interested in learning more about Jewish tradition's rejection of homosexuality are invited to read "Judaism’s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality" by Dennis Prager.

Moving on to the New Testament, Dr. Gagnon goes on to illustrate how St. Paul, in his discussion of sexuality and the prohibitions against homosexuality, incest, and other forms of sexual immorality, relies on the Genesis accounts and alludes to Genesis on numerous occasions (Rom 1: 18-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9):

The Catholic Church's understanding of sexuality is spelled out in the explication of the Sixth Commandment in the Catechism of the Catholic Church [2331 ff.]. Of course, it is not by coincidence that it follows Jewish and early Christian tradition in establishing its teaching on sexuality in the Genesis' account of creation of the first man and woman:

The Holy Father's Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio ("On The Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World") contains a concise and brilliant summary of the proper end of sexuality according to Catholic doctrine:

(Note: those interested in exploring the Holy Father's vision of marriage and human sexuality in light of the Gospel are encouraged to read Christopher West, who has done much to popularize the Pope's thought on this subject).

Nathan describes the Church's emphasis on the unitive and procreative elements of sexuality as "relatively modern," employed by the Church only after it was deemed that scriptural passages alone were not sufficient to defend prohibitions against homosexuality. But as we have seen, the Church's teaching on sexuality is thoroughly scriptural, and its appeal to Genesis can be traced back to St. Paul, Jesus, and the beginning of Jewish interpretation of Genesis. In answer to Nathan's question: "What came first, the opposition to homosexuality or the argument that opposes it?" -- it would seem to be the latter: Christians take their cue from St. Paul and Jesus, who in turn take their cue from the Jewish scriptures. If Nathan wishes to dispute the prohibition with homosexuality, his beef appears to be with the book of Genesis itself.

A further argument from Nathan:

I'm going to take a wild guess: Nathan has been reading Andrew Sullivan.

The answer, I think, can be discovered in Janet Smith's explanation of the difference between Natural Family Planning and artificial contraception ("Natural Family Planning and Self Mastery"):

A post-menopausal woman would be in the category of one rendered infertile by the natural progress of nature, and a couple using NFP to regulate the births of their children are also implicitly "recognizing fertility as a good and doing nothing to deny this good." (Christopher West explains the difference between respect for fertility via NFP and the falsifying of sexual union via contraception in "God, Sex, and Babies: What the Church Really Teaches about Responsible Parenthood" This Rock Vol. 14, No. 9, Nov. 2003).

Where homosexual acts differ from the above is this: to the extent that the homosexual condition is not deliberately willed, it is not a sin. However, if one grants the Church's position that the divinely-instituted purpose of sex is the expression of married love between male and female and the generation of new life, one must conclude that homosexual activity deliberately willed constitutes grave sin, because by its very nature it is not oriented towards procreation. It is ontologically disordered. (James Akin clarifies this in the section on "homosexuality and infertility" in a discussion earlier this month).

To "make a exception" as Nathan suggests, the Catholic Church would have to abandon its affirmation of the creation account in Genesis, the basis for the Judeo-Christian understanding of sexuality.

Nathan concludes:

I have attempted to demonstrate otherwise -- I'll let my readers be the judge.

Update

• Nathan's response is here.
• My response, and last post in this series, is here.

Labels: sexuality

Argument 2: What About Leviticus and St. Paul?

Nathan concedes that the Church's teaching on homosexuality is neither solely or primarily based on the [alleged] misinterpretation of the destruction of Sodom, but appeals to the passages found in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 and the writings of St. Paul (Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10) which he now critiques.

With regards to Leviticus, Nathan questions whether they refer to actual homosexual orientation or to homosexual behavior by those who are heterosexual (temple prostitution and other crimes). Furthermore, he argues, in light of the New Testament revelation such laws of ritual purity have been abrogated and their observance is nullified.

St. Paul's writings on homosexuality are, in their original Greek, difficult and ambiguous, and are often taken out of context. Just as St. Paul's writings were misused by Protestants in the promotion of erroneous doctrines justifying the persecution of Catholics, says Nathan, one may not be suprised that St. Paul is now employed by fundamentalists to persecute homosexuals, women, and other minorities.

Examples of such misinterpretations (according to Nathan) are presented, each allegation followed by my reply.

Leviticus and Christian dispensation from the "Laws of Ritual Purity"

Nathan contends that the reference to homosexuality in Leviticus is ambiguous: "it is unclear at best if Leviticus was referring to an actual homosexual orientation (doubtful), or to homosexual behavior by those who are heterosexual"; "The word "abomination" used in Leviticus connotes religious uncleanliness and/or idol worship -- it is part of the Levitical Holiness Code, which has been dispensed with by [and no longer applicable to] Christians."

On the contrary, Gordon J Wenham (The Old Testament Attitude to Homosexuality" Expository Times 102. 1991) makes a good case that the laws in Leviticus bans every type of homosexual intercourse, not just pederasty or homosexual rape by heterosexuals. This is indicated by the fact that a) Lev 20:13 applies the harshest punishment (the death penalty, on par with adultery) against both individuals and refers to the culpability of both parties:

Wenham demonstrates that Israel's general condemnation of homosexuality far surpassed its neighbors ("saw homosexual acts as quite acceptable provided they were not incestuous or forcible"), and that such a prohibition was rooted in the interpretation of the Genesis account:

Suffice to say Christianity's rejection of the "laws of ritual purity" are of an entirely different order than its rejection of homosexuality. In light of the unification of Jew and Gentile under Christ, the Church believed the provisional laws of Judaism were superceded. Nevertheless, the early Church continued to assert the permanence of the moral law of the Torah, including prohibitions of those acts which frustrated the proper orientation of sex towards procreation.

We'll address the topic of natural law -- Nathan's third argument -- in the next post, but again, to reiterate Thomas Schmidt: "The proper starting point for a consideration of homosexuality is not a list of prohibition texts but an understanding of what the bible affirms in heterosexual monogamy."

St. Paul's reference to homosexuality and idol worship in Romans 1:26-27

Understood in context, says Nathan, Romans 1:26-27 is not condemning homosexuality per se, but rather "a form of homosexuality, but as it pertains to idolatry. Indeed, all of Romans 1:18 to 2:4 is all about idolatry and pagan worship."

As with the Leviticus accounts, Paul's condemnation of homosexuality in Romans is rooted in the Jewish understanding of the Hebrew creation account. David E. Malick notes in "The Condemnation of Homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27," Bibliotheca Sacra 150: 599 (1993): 327-340. [.pdf format]: "Romans 1:26 bears the idea of a natural constitution as established by God in the creation of the human race."

Romans is replete with references to God's creation, and to actions which essentially violate the natural order and purpose of creation. Malick concludes:

Nathan's argument that it is solely related to idolatry fails on account that it ignores the relationship of the punishment to sin ("God gave them over"): God specifically punishes mankind for idolatry by handing over mankind to sin -- homosexuality clearly identified as sin, and is understood to be such in relation to the created order. Richard B. Hays: "God's judgment allows the irony of sin to play itself out; the creature’s original impulse towards self-glorification ends in self-destruction. The refusal to acknowledge God as creator ends in blind distortion of the creation." ("Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to J. Boswells Exegesis of Romans 1," Journal of Religious Ethics 14 Spring 1986). (See Malick's article for further refutation of these kinds of arguments).

St. Paul's use of arsenokoites and malakoi

Nathan contends that St. Paul's use of the term arsenokoitai in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 -- translated as homosexual or sodomite -- is wholly ambiguous in origin and meaning, has not been found anywhere else in the Bible or contemporary Greek of Paul's time, and most likely "refers to male prostitutes with female customers. Likewise, the Greek word malakoi in 1 Corinthians 6:9, taken to mean effeminate in modern translations, is properly translated as "soft" or "vulnerable" (as in reference to clothing in Luke 7:25 or illness in Matthew 4:23); or citing Dr. Rembert Truluck, "[malakoi] refers to someone who is 'soft,' 'pliable,' 'unreliable,' or 'without courage or stability.'" In short, arsenokoites refers to the Hellenic practice of pederasty or temple prostitution and not to homosexual practice per se, while malakoi properly translated carries no hint of sexual orientation.

As Thomas E. Schmidt observes in Straight & Narrow?: Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate (pp. 95-96):

David Malick examines these passages and counters the interpretations of the revisionists in great detail in "The Condemnation of Homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9" Bibliotheca Sacra 150: 600 (1993): 479-492. [.pdf format]. He also cites Josephus (ca. A.D. 37-100) as another example of one who, when referring to the laws of Leviticus, "retained the general terms found in the Septuagint ('male with male') and not the Hellenistic practice of pederasty." Subsequent writers such as Eusebius (ca. A.D. 260-339) and the Sibylline Oracles (30 B.C-A.D. 250) "allow for the broader, Pauline sense of homosexual activity."

Regarding the use of malakoi, Malick cites P. Michael Ukleja ("The Bible and Homosexuality, Part 2: Homosexuality in the New Testament," Bibliotheca Sacra 140 (October-December 1983): 351.):

Finally, that numerous scholars believe this word to be coined by St. Paul himself would probably explain its limited use in Scripture and Greek literature.

Nathan thus concludes:

On the contrary, based on my research it would be seem to me that the traditional interpretation stands on solid ground, and the "burden of proof" is not on those who maintain the traditional reading of scripture but on the revisionists.

Just to cover all the bases, Nathan contends that -- in the event St. Paul's words aren't a mistranslation -- and he really intended to condemn homosexuality, "it may have nothing to do with homosexuality as we understand it today."

According to Nathan, in St. Paul's time it was assumed that homosexuality was a matter of personal choice, a common form of sexual release by soldiers in time of warfare, or used in idolatrous worship of pagan gods. In light of which, it is understanable how such behavior might appear unchaste. Fortunately, says Nathan, we live in more enlightened times, when homosexuality is understood to be "[genuine attraction] to people of the same sex, who have no attraction to those of the opposite sex, because of genetic and/or environmental and developmental factors beyond their control, not because of a conscious choice." Thus:

I would respond that economics is a wholly different field than sexual morality. That the Church has modified its position with respect to economic issues (capitalism, the free market, democracy) is understandable and to be expected.

However, given the Church's understanding of the Hebrew creation accounts in Genesis -- reiterated by Our Lord in Mark 10:6-7 -- and the essential purpose of sexuality towards procreation, one honestly cannot expect the Church to repeal the prohibition on homosexuality without taking the radical position that the Church is fundamentally wrong with respect to its understanding of sexuality and marriage itself.

Update:

• Nathan has posted his reaction here.
• My response, and last post on Paul & Leviticus, is here.

Labels: sexuality

Nathan states three arguments for why he believes the Catholic Church's position on homosexuality is mistaken. For the sake of brevity (well, I try) and my readers' attention spans, I will present Nathan's arguments and my responses in three separate posts. The first will address perceived misinterpretations regarding "the sin of Sodom"; the second, the book of Leviticus and St. Paul's writings on the subject; the third, the case of natural law.

Scripture interpretation and biblical scholarship not being my forte, I trust my readers will understand my reliance upon those far more knowledgeable than I in this field.

Argument 1: The "sin of Sodom" is not homosexuality but inhospitality

The definition of sodomy is rooted in biblical misinterpretation - According to conservative [i.e., traditional] reading of the scriptures, the crime of Sodom and Gomorrah was identified with the intent of the male citizens of Sodom to rape the angels, who were in male form. Besides the mistaken equasion of homosexuality with homosexual rape, says Nathan, "the main problem with this view of sodomy is that it is not supported by the rest of scripture, either in the Old Testament or in the New Testament."

Nathan points out that the Prophet Ezekiel provides another reason for Sodom's destruction: "This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy (Ezek. 16:49)." Consequently, we may judge that the "sin of Sodom" was not homosexuality, but greed and refusal to help the poor and needy.

Outside of Genesis, Sodom is mentioned only a handful of times, and in such cases it is percieved as a sign of punishment for idolatry (Deuteronomy 29:23, and again in Deuteronomy 32:32; Jeremiah 23:14 and Amos (4:11) or "indifference to the poor and oppressed" (Isaiah 1:16-17).

In the New Testament there are two references to Sodom. In the Gospel of Matthew 10:15 ("it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town") and 11:23 ("it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom on the day of judgment than for you") Jesus refers to Sodom again, not in conjunction with homosexuality but again, as symbolic of those who are guilty of infidelity and lack of faith in God's revelation.

Consequently, says Nathan:

Response:

In Straight & Narrow?: Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate -- a very well-written and informative book on this subject -- Thomas E. Schmidt examines the revisionist account of Sodom and the separation of inhospitality from sexual sin in subsequent references to Sodom in the Old Testament. According to Mr. Schmidt:

• The OT writers may very well be generalizing from a particular offense:
  "This is especially likely if, as it appears, homosexuality was rare in Israel. That is, biblical writers generalized in order to show the applicability of judgement on Sodom to people who did not do precisely what the Sodomites did. An example of this is Jeremiah 49:18, which compares Jerusalem to Sodom but specifies only adultery as sexual sin.

• We must bear in mind that Jews were modest people who often used figures of speech to mask explicit subject matter. Schmidt cites as an example the incident in Genesis 90:27-27 where Noah's son "saw the nakedness of his father" -- in what is commonly understood in Jewish scriptural interpreation as a veiled reference to rape. "Whether or not this example applies," says Schmidt, "we cannot dismiss the possibility that general references to the sin of Sodom have sexual sin at least partially, if euphamistically, in view."

• With reference to the citation of Ezekial 16:49, Schmidt reminds us to respect the context, for if we continue to the next verse, the meaning becomes clear: "Rather, they became haughty and committed abominable crimes in my presence; then, as you have seen, I removed them." Notes Schmidt:
  Various things were abominable, but since the word is used to describe sexual sin in the same chapter (Ezekiel 16: 22, 58), and since it refers to same-sex acts in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, the passage may imply quite the opposite of the revisionist claim [p. 88]
• Schmidt points out that it is misleading to only cite part of the evidence, as a comprehensive survey of all Jewish literature reveals that some Jews did, in fact, associate Sodom with sexual sin:
  The fact that the author of Judges shows evidence of dependence on the Sodom story demonstrates that the tradition began very early. In the Greek period the tradition merely became more specific in its response to Gentile homosexuality. The second-century Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs labels the Sodomites "sexually promiscuous" (Testament of Benjamin 9:1) and refers to "Sodom, which departed from the order of nature" (Testament of Naphthali 3:4). [Ibid.]

  According to Schmidt, both Philo and Josephus "plainly name homosexual relations as the characteristic vice of Sodom." And in the endnotes to this chapter, he refers to additional passages: "See also 2 Enoch 10:4-5 and 35:1-3 ms. P, which may represent early Christian revision;Jubilees 20:5-6; Testament of Levi 17:11; Epistle of Aristeas 152; probably Wisdom of Solomon 14:26 ("confusion of sex"). In addition, the Septuagint of Genesis 19 uses terms that imply that the translators understood the same-sex connotation of the passages, see J.B. DeYoung, "The Contributions of the Septuagint to Biblical Sanctions Against Homosexuality" Journal of Evangelical Theological Society 34 (June 1991): 161-65.

New Testament references to Sodom not only include the words of Jesus in the gospels; the book of Jude (1:7, 1:8 and 2 Peter 2:4-7 also mentions Sodom with the reference of sexual conduct.

Unfortunately, Schmidt does not go into any detail about Jesus' brief reference to the punishment of Sodom in Mathew 10:15 and 11:23. But in my investigation I came across this Zenit interview with Robert A.J. Gagnon, author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics on "The Bible and Homosexual Practice: An Overview of Some Issues", who states with good reason why one cannnot infer from Jesus' alleged "silence" on homosexuality that he was not opposed to it:

On the contrary, Gagnon points out, Jesus spoke out against porneia, "sexual immorality" (Mark 7:21-23) and accepted the Decalogue commandment against adultery (Mark 10:19) -- which, in his day, was understood in Judaism to include same-sex intercourse and any activity outside the male-female model of relationships, realizing its divine purpose in the covenant of marriage. Gagnon cites as evidence of such: "[Jesus'] back-to-back citation in Mark 10:6-7 of Genesis 1:27 ("God made them male and female") and Genesis 2:24 ("For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh")."

So what about Jesus' reference to Sodom? -- Again, Schmidt's point about generalizing from a particular offense would apply here: Granted that Sodom and Gommorah had by Jesus' time become "synonymous with impenitent sin, and their fall with a proverbial manifestation of God's just wrath," it makes perfect sense that Jesus would refer to Sodom in a general sense and without mention of its specific crimes. There are a lot of sins that Jesus did not mention specifically (paedophilia, for example), but we can correctly assume that he would not have approved them and most definitely opposed them.

Finally, that the "sin of Sodom" may refer to homosexual rape as both Nathan and Thomas Schmidt believe ("they attempted what we call male rape as a means to humiliate suspected spies") does not invalidate later interpretation of Sodom as a general rebuke of homosexual activity:

In light of which, it is understandable that later references to Sodom by the Church Fathers (such as Clement of Alexandria and St. Augustine would make the same connection.

This debate over scriptural prohibitions may strike some readers as tedious but is however unfortunately necessary, in the interest of countering various arguments that would lead one astray. As Thomas Schmidt notes: "The proper starting point for a consideration of homosexuality is not a list of prohibition texts but an understanding of what the bible affirms in heterosexual monogamy" (and, I may add, of marriage."

End of Part One

Related Links

• Collected articles by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Associate Professor of New Testament. Pittsburgh Theological Seminary.
• Review of Straight & Narrow?, by John Richardson, Anglican Chaplain to the University of East London.
• The Moral Interpretation of Scripture has a compilation of links on the subject, including a look at the role and authority of scripture in the debate over homosexuality.

UPDATE

• Nathan has posted a rebuttal (largely to the positions of Thomas E. Schmidt here.
• My response to Nathan and last post on Sodom can be found here.

Labels: sexuality

I'm delighted to see a number of quotations by Orthodox Lubavitcher Rabbi Manis Friedman, author of Doesn't Anyone Blush Anymore: Love, Marriage and the Art of Intimacy -- a book which Bob Dylan endorsed as a must-read "for everyone married or thinking of getting married."

A Christian equivalent to Rabbie Friedman's book would be Plea for Purity: Sex, God and Marriage by Johann Christoph Arnold of the Bruderhof Community. You can download a free copy here (.pdf format).

Of course, we couldn't possibly end a post on this topic without mentioning Christopher West's presentation of Pope John Paul II's "Theology of the Body."

Labels: sexuality