What Sin?? John F

The Linacre Quarterly Volume 43 | Number 3 Article 7 August 1976 Hate the Sin But Love the Sinner. Sin? What Sin?? John F. Russell Follow this and additional works at: http://epublications.marquette.edu/lnq Recommended Citation Russell, John F. (1976) "Hate the Sin But Love the Sinner. Sin? What Sin??," The Linacre Quarterly: Vol. 43: No. 3, Article 7. Available at: http://epublications.marquette.edu/lnq/vol43/iss3/7 Hate the Sin But Love the Sinner. Sin? What Sin?? John F. Russell, J.D. (This is a greatly abbreviated theologians and others who have adaptation from a chapter in Dr. expressed their scholarly and oth Russell's cur r e n t book-length erwise knowledgeable views on manuscript on the homosexual the matter and the impact that issue in all the major religious de the various avenues of approach nominations in the United States. will have on church, society, and In gathering material for the especially the individual.) book, Dr. Russell, who has been The N ew Catholic Encyclope a professional scholar on organ dia describes the homosexual act ized homosexual activities for as a "grave transgression of the over two decades, has interviewed divine will." literally hundreds of religious and lay officials of all denominations Right? along with numerous gay activ The National Conference of ists. In addition, he has re Catholic B ish 0 p s , speaking searched well over 10,000 articles, through its Principles to Guide publications, and news items on Confessors in Questions of Homo the subject. The material present sexuality, says that homosexual ed here barely penetrates even practices are a "grave violation of this single aspect of the multi the law of God." fac eted scope of the total problem realized by the religious and lay Right? communities, homosexual and And the most recent expression heterosexual alike. by the Roman Catholic Church The present art i c l e refl ects on the subject, the "Declaration some points in the views of at on Certain Questions Concerning least a score of individuals, most Sexual Ethics," tells the faithful of whom are taking a position op that "no pastoral method can be posed to church tradition and employed which would give moral teaching on the issue of homosex justification to these acts" [i.e., uality. The points expressed in homosexual genital acts]. this short presentation might be Right? considered as headnotes since Thus it would appear that the they merely open the doors to the Catholic Church holds homosex considerable in-depth thoughts ual genital conduct to be serious and studies of the individuals sin, a grave violation of God's law. concerned. Moreover, it is well to The point seems simple enough. keep in mind that this article has No question. not exhausted the list of Catholic Then why has Cardinal Krol, August, 1976 179 Archbishop of Philadelphia, seen What confusion? Who are these fit to say that today there are persons to whom Cardinal Krol those who call themselves Catho directs his accusation? And who lic who are attempting to have are those judging indulgently and accepted many things which are excusing completely homosexual opposed to God's law, one of those activity in a given situation? things being the homosexual re Are they among the highly vo lationship and lifestyle? cal group of sincere Catholic re Why has the Sacred Congrega ligious and lay persons, some of tion for the Doctrine of the Faith, whom hold seriously that the speaking with the approval of Catholic Church has for centuries Pope Paul VI, found it necessary misinterpreted the Scriptures re to say that there are those who garding homosexuality? Are they now judge indulgently, and even those who charge, in effect, that excuse completely, homosexual the Catholic Church has long relations under some circum been in the forefront of those who stances? This indulgence, said the have persecuted the homosexual Sacred Congregation, is in "op without just cause or moral rea position to the constant teaching son? Do they include tliose who of the Magisterium." look at history philosophically and ponder academically whether Why did Cardinal Medeiros, the Church is correct in all her Archbishop of Boston, in his 1976 theories on sex, whether in all Lenten Pastoral, have to include cases the rigid standards of the the "justification of homosexual Church apply? relations" as a modem idiom One very outspoken priest is which has deformed the "delicacy the Jesuit, Rev. John J. McNeill, with which Sacred Scripture an author and professor of moral draws its teaching about sex theology at Woodstock College. 3 uality?" One of McNeill's principal con tentions, which he has held re What prompted Msgr. George peatedly, is that the sin for which A. Kelly I to write that: God destroyed Sodom was not "Catholic moral theology has fall overt homosexual activity but, 4 en to such a low estate that opin-. rather, inhospitality. ions about homosexuality dispensed at the popular level frequently have "If there is any myth that lies at little relationship to what the mag the very source of Western Chris isterium teaches. Because bishops tian society's condemnation and seem unable to restore the required persecution of the homosexual, it is unity between the two, Catholic the myth of Sodom and Gomorrah. pastor and Catholic homosexual are ... Western society has assumed readily confused, neither knowing for centuries that it was clearly re what the Catholic faith essentially vealed in Scripture . that homo requires of them in the present cli sexuality is contrary to the will of mate of gay activism."2 God .. 180 Linacre Quarterly "As a result of this interpreta tion understood homosexual practices of Genesis a whole lega l tradition as a "sign of alienation from sprang up which is still operative God." In this light, according to today . .. " the Jesuit, the saint was referring The Church, he said, erred in to homosexual activities in the her interpretation of the biblical same light as the Old Testament, circumstances which caused the that being idolatry. In McNeill's destruction of the cities of the opinion, St. Paul was not aware plains approximately 19 centuries of the distinction between the before the birth of Christ. Be morally-neutral con d i t ion of cause she erred and compounded homosexuality and the homosex the erroneous belief through her ual genital act. Moreover, it is teaching and great influence down McNeill's view that St. Paul failed the centuries, McNeill saw the to distinguish sharply between Catholic Church's attitude to custom and nature. As a result, as ward the homosexual as "another McNeill sees it, Paul's pronounce example of structural social in ments on homosexuality have justice." been given a faulty interpreta Fr. McNeill's position regard tion, attributing to St. Paul a ing the fall of Sodom has been knowledge he did not possess. severely criticized by Msgr. Kelly. Again Msgr. Kelly has taken strong issue with McNeill. The "While it is customa ry to dismiss monsignor referred to the Swiss these Old Testament legalisms as Pro t est ant theologian, Klaus time-conditioned Jew i s h mores Bockmuhl, who has objected to rather tha n divine mora lisms, the early Christian Church itself did the "reduction of theology to not look gently on homosexua l 'mere anthropology'" and who pra ctices, in pa rt because these wrote that we re expressions of late Graeco Homan licentiousness, which among " Anyone who looks at First Cor the uppe r d asses included pede r inthians 6 without the prejudice asty." ·i tha t pe rmits the fa ntastic exegeti·.' some rsaults we have been discus Kelly emphasized that the "city sing will discove r that in the N ew of Sodom was destroyed because T esta ment the law is for the good the sin of the Sodomites was of man. How ca n it then be com homosexuality." This, he wrote, is passiona te to eliminate it?" the interpretation of Genesis 19 Fr. McNeill has been quoted as reached by the J erome Biblical Commentary, The J erusalem Bi saying that perhaps the homosex ble, and Genesis in the Anchor ual element of society can bring Bible. the heterosexual community to a As for the seeming denounce grea ter understanding of them ments against homosexuality by selves as persons. Given its free St. Paul in the New Testament, dom, he said, the homosexual McNeill has claimed that Paul community could help lead so- August, 1976 181 ciety to a greater understanding "Does heterosexuality exhaust the of love between equal human be possibilities of human sexual ex ings. pression ?" On occasion the National Fed The Salvatorian national min eration of Priests Councils has istry to the homosexual com been concerned with the various munity, promoted through its facets of the subject of homosex Task Force, performs its work of u a lit y . At its convention in educating priests, brothers, and Denver in March, 1972, the Fed nuns "into a full understanding of eration pass sed a resolution which, anti-gay fears" by lectures, mail according to one priest official, ings, workshops, and other meth would strain church doctrine.6 ods of communication. The Task The resolution proclaimed that Force has issued theses on "homo the Catholic Church's concern for phobia," the myths of homosex and ministry to the homosexual uality, status of the Brian Mc was, for all intents and purposes, Naught case,s human nature and non-existent in the United States. homosexuality, homosexuals in Moreover, charged the resolution, Sweden, male homosexuals and priests who work with and min foster care, and male homosexuals ister to homosexuals are stigmac in general.

Load more