Gays: Response to Questions

I am at home too sick to go into the office and do not have Helminiak’s book in front of me, but I think the book’s most important contribution (see interview, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/interviews/helminiak.html) is to emphasize a criticism of the standard reading of Romans, ch.1(the most difficult passage to reconcile with his position). Helminiak argues that “When you read Paul the way it's translated, it seems pretty clear. ‘Unnatural’ is a mistranslation, pure and simple. It should read "atypical". The Greek words are ‘para physin’--beyond the natural. All [the standard translations of the Bible] are mistranslated. And this is only recent scholarship, like in the past ten years. The word ‘para physin’ comes out of early Stoic philosophy, from the early centuries when Christianity was forming. If it was being used in the Stoic sense, then it would mean ‘unnatural.’ The fact is that Paul, who was using it, didn't know Stoic philosophy. He used it in his own sense, which squares with the popular usage of the day. ... When they were talking about men and women, if you did things that weren't the standard way of behaving, it was called ‘unnatural.’ What it meant was ‘unconventional.’ . . . They can say that Paul is condemning. But if you read him very, very closely, you see what he's really saying. Take out the prejudices that we have, and he's portraying two things that happen to the Gentiles. They're into dirty behaviors, uncleanness (and that's the sexual stuff), and they're into really evil and wicked things as well. And later on he goes to say, ‘But nothing is unclean in Christ.’

“And his lesson is, ‘Let's stop splitting up the church over stuff that doesn't matter.’ I'm saying that today, as well as Paul saying it then. We shouldn't be bickering over sexual practices. What we should be concerned about is love and charity and concern”

Far more persuasive to me is the fact that the Jews of Paul’s time had a very different conception of gays and lesbians than we do. They thought of people as heterosexuals who, at best, were engaging in recreational same sex relations on the side (some biblical passages imagine far worse including rape, prostitution, and perderasty). They were unaware of the millions of persons who through no fault of their own are not attracted to people of the opposite sex . They did not face up to the question whether God created these millions with a demand of mandatory celibacy. And, of course, Jesus has nothing to say on the subject.

  In response to Patrick (I do not suppose he would disagree whatever his position on the merits), I would say that many who accept the immorality of same sex relations need not think that gays and lesbians are incapable of rich spiritual lives. Indeed, the Catechism speaks against any such view. They might reject the Vatican’s opposition to anti-discrimination laws against gays and lesbians, against the Vatican’s position on gay/lesbian adoption, against the apparent view that gays present special risks of pedophilia, against the view that gays are so disordered that they can not relate well to men or women, and they might favor the Church’s prior more generous practice of admitting gays to the priesthood. They might favor some of these positions, but not others.