Essay About Homosexual Acts And Following Reasons

Theology on Homosexuality
Essay Preview: Theology on Homosexuality
Report this essay
Homosexuality: A Summary                The received tradition of the Catholic Church condemns homosexual acts as “intrinsically disordered” and gravely immoral and does so on the basis of three foundations, scripture, the Magisterium and “the moral sense of the Christian people.” The chapter proceeds to name this teaching as a distorting tradition and concludes that some homosexual acts may be morally right and are merely the inverse of heterosexual acts.                The first foundation, of the church’s condemnation on homosexual behavior arises from how scripture condemns homosexual acts, particularly in passages concerning Sodom, Leviticus and verses in the New Testament. The author argues that these passages, taken in the context of their time, is not applicable to the present due to the following reasons:First, the scriptural authors presumed everyone is heterosexual and therefore makes homosexual acts a freely chosen perversion. He then goes on to clearly delineate the difference between homosexual behavior and homosexual orientation. Homosexual orientation is a condition, not a choice. No one can therefore be held morally accountable for being homosexual. It is when they go against the behavior “natural” to said orientation, by engaging in heterosexual acts, do they become subject to condemnation, do they go against their nature, in the same way that homosexual acts coming from someone of heterosexual orientation are considered perversions.                The second reason the author believes, is bad biology in the Hebrew context. The early Jews believed the male’s “seed” contained the whole of life, and to spill this seed where it could not develop was tantamount to murder. This is mainly the reason why lesbian acts were not considered worthy of consideration anywhere in the Old Testament. This of course, we now know, is not the case, both men and women contribute equally in procreation.                The third reason stated was the kind of patriarchal society in the context of scripture’s times which does not correspond to today’s society anymore. It was forbidden for the patriarch to take on passivity, both in daily life and in intercourse. It was a question of honor, which they believe to be compromised in passivity. The male figure was also not allowed to be effeminate as in the context of their society masculinity was honored and femininity disparaged. This results to a view that considers effeminacy in men an abomination. Modern times’ improved views on the equality of both sexes and their behavioral norms render this reason obsolete. These reasons, the author believes, prove that nowhere in scripture can we find the answer to the question of homosexual morality, largely due to the disparity between the context then versus the context now.                The second foundation for the church’s condemnation of homosexual behavior, is the Magisterium and is characterized by three arguments: The first argument is the Natural Law Argument that homosexual acts go against people’s nature and the author responds in a similar way he did against scripture’s assumption that everyone is heterosexual.The Magisterium’s second argument, the Procreation Argument” goes by how homosexual acts close sexual act to the gift of life. In critique of this, the author presents the problem of infertility wherein sexual acts are in a sense closed to the gift of life. Despite this he argues that both homosexual and heterosexual couples can exhibit Hanigan’s “iconic significance” in their embodied interpersonal unions and sexual acts.