The Teaching Based in Scripture and Tradition

• Scripture and Tradition Condemn Homosexual Acts. The moral teaching of the Church that homosexual acts are sinful and disordered is based on:
  • The Bible
  • Sacred Tradition handed down from the apostles as reflected in the unanimous consent of the fathers of the Church and the unchanging magisterium of the Church in the two thousand years of its existence on earth.
  • Philosophical reflections on the natural law.
  The Bible condemns homosexual activity explicitly and harshly in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. While modern theologians and Biblical scholars try to render these condemnations practically meaningless, the plain sense of the inspired text remains and cries out in words transcending cultural contexts the moral (and not just ceremonial or dietary) injunction that "thou shalt not lie with man as with woman".
   
• Condemnations Always Interpreted as Applying to All Such Acts. In addition to the plain sense of Scripture, the early Church fathers and the Church's magisterium continuously interpreted the Biblical condemnations as applying to all homosexual acts, not simply to such acts in the context of temple prostitution or among those who do not have a high degree of same sex attraction, as many modern theologians and Biblical scholars argue. The fact that the Church, who Catholics believe is guided by the Holy Spirit in her interpretation of faith and morals, consistently so interpreted the Biblical prohibitions suggests that the narrow interpretations put forth by revisionist theologians are erroneous or possibly even self serving justifications for sinful activity. Moreover, Catholics must give the assent of faith to all teachings of the deposit of faith - not just dogmas infallibly defined by a pope or an ecumenical council or found in the Nicene Creed. If something has been always and everywhere taught within the Church, i.e., is part of the ordinary and universal magisterium, then it is part of Sacred Tradition and must be given the assent of faith. There is no question that the sinfulness of all homosexual acts has always and everywhere been held to be sinful by the Church's authentic magisterium.
   
• Supposed "Modern" Knowledge Questionable. Furthermore, the notion often put forth nowadays that the apostles and the Church fathers did not know "what we know today" about homosexuality, i.e., that they did not realize that same sex attraction was deep seated in some people, just does not ring true. It is inconceivable that none of the apostles and fathers knew either from the experience of acquaintances or perhaps in some cases from their own experience that same sex attraction can be deep seated. Moreover, the Church has had two thousand years of practical experience of spiritual direction and surely would have obtained during that period the wisdom that homosexual attraction can be deep seated in the dubious case that such wisdom was not there before. And in any event, the prohibition in the Bible is a prohibition on activity: since behavior is something that can be chosen or not regardless of the degree of same sex attraction (although sometimes of course it can be difficult without the help of grace to resist temptation), then it is difficult to see why our supposed "modern knowledge", even if it really is new, should change God's decrees.
   
• Jesus Loved Purity of Heart - Chastity is a "Core" Teaching of Christianity. Most tellingly to my mind, the Bible shows that Our Lord put purity of heart and the avoidance of even lustful thoughts at the center of his teaching. I have a hard time reconciling this concern of our Savior for chastity with the promiscuity that I see common in the "gay" lifestyle today. Even sexual acts within a homosexual "union" seem impure to my mind, since the unitive act is not open to life and the element of lust would seem inevitably to be predominant. I am therefore skeptical of efforts to justify this lifestyle within a Christian context. The teachings on sexual morality of the Church, far from being optional extras that are not part of the "core" of Christian doctrine, as some modern Anglican divines would have it, belong to the very essence of Jesus' message of purity and selfless love for God and neighbor. Changing this teaching would be taking away a significant if not crucial part of Christian teaching, and might even be deemed the creation of a new religion. Christianity, including its call for sexual purity, is a radical contradiction to the values of the world. One can certainly choose to believe in the values of the world, but such are not authentic Christianity and it is misleading so to label them.
   
• The True Church Cannot Change Teaching. The Church is based on the faith revealed to the apostles and known to us from Scripture and Tradition as interpreted and expounded by the Church's magisterium down the ages. Since this body of teaching on faith and morals cannot change, it is disloyal to insist that the Church must change its teaching to suit one's personal preferences. Of course doctrine can develop over time, but authentic development, as Cardinal Newman explained, must occur in an organic way. The detailed implications and applications to specific circumstances of existing doctrinal principles can become clearer and more refined over the centuries, but doctrine cannot be reversed. Bending the moral rules on homosexual acts, even if only in some circumstances, would constitute a reversal of long and clearly expressed moral teaching.
   
• Legitimate Development of Doctrine Has Occurred. Indeed, legitimate development of doctrine relating to homosexuality does seem to have taken place. For instance, I would argue that the greater emphasis now placed on treating those with same sex attraction with love and compassion, as evidenced in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, reflects a more nuanced treatment than the mere condemnations of the activity that might have characterized previous pronouncements on the topic over the centuries. This development would seem to be a logical result of analysis about how the important teachings on charity and the dignity of the human person relate to the condemnation of homosexual acts as sinful and disordered. The greater sensitivity to the personhood of those with same sex attraction does not in any way reverse or contradict the settled teaching on the sinfulness of such acts or the disorder of the inclination.