h1

Causes of Homosexuality: A Christian Appraisal of the Data

Causes of Homosexuality: A Christian Appraisal of the Data

Andrew J. Sodergren, M.S.

John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family

Abstract

This paper discusses some of the recent scientific findings on the causes of homosexuality in the context of a Christian anthropology.  After reviewing the major findings in the empirical literature, the discussion focuses on how such an anthropology can account for these findings without compromising the traditional Christian ethical teaching that homosexual acts are intrinsically immoral and the homosexual inclination is objectively disordered.  Of particular importance here are notions of original sin, fallen nature, the sexual difference, and the virtue of chastity. 

Causes of Homosexuality:  A Christian Appraisal of the Data
Debates over the morality of homosexual acts and same-sex unions inevitably contain some inferences and remarks about the supposed causes of homosexual inclinations.  Likewise, researchers who examine the causes of homosexuality are often unable to refrain from commenting on the ethical debate.  Thus, these issues seem intertwined, at least in the minds of many well-intentioned people.  This interlinking, however, tends to result in misunderstanding and in fallacious assumptions on the sides of both ethicists and scientists because of a lack of understanding across disciplines.  For instance, many in the ethical debate over homosexuality hold that not only are homosexual acts always immoral but also the very disposition is in some way morally disordered.  On the other hand, scientists often oppose such a view and hold that a homosexual orientation is morally neutral.  They marshal empirical evidence of a biological basis for the homosexual orientation, proving that it is “natural” and should therefore be embraced and lived out by those who experience it.  In this paper I will attempt to steer a path through this tangled forest.  I will begin by providing an overview of the major empirical findings on the causes of homosexuality.  I will then attempt to show that a Christian anthropology can account for these findings without compromising a firm ethical stance on homosexual acts and inclinations.

Research on the Etiology of Homosexuality
 The most publicized research studies on the causes of homosexuality have been those examining the role of genetics.  Indeed, a number of studies have attempted to assess the heritability of the homosexual orientation.  The primary way of examining the genetic contribution to a given behavior or disposition such as sexual orientation is through twin studies.  The premise is that by comparing monozygotic (MZ) twins (who share 100% of their genetic code), dizygotic (DZ) twins and biological siblings (who both share approximately 50% of their genetic code), and adopted siblings (who have none of their genetic code in common), researchers can glean an understanding of whether a trait is heritable and to what extent (Billings & Beckwith, 1993).  However, in order to truly assess the effects of genes, one has to control or neutralize the contribution of environmental factors in the development of the characteristic in question.  Such environmental factors could include anything from position in the womb, maternal nutrition, and the hormonal milieu of the uterine environment to post-natal care, early illnesses, parenting style, family constellation, education, socialization, and so forth.  These influences can have profound effects not only on a person’s behavior but even on their biological make-up.  Thus, researchers are coming to recognize that the hard division of nature—nurture is no longer tenable.  It is always a “both—and”, especially in traits as complicated as sexual orientation.  It is important to note that several of the factors listed above pertain to the prenatal environment.  In this period of development, the environment can have profound effects on the organism, and this will be discussed further below.

In the most desirable type twin study, researchers examine MZ twins who were separated at birth and reared apart.  This is considered the ideal in behavioral genetics.  As the reasoning goes, since such twins have the same genetic code but are reared in different environments, any behavioral similarities they manifest likely have a strong genetic basis.  Unfortunately, these situations are rare, and they are extremely so if the trait being studied is itself uncommon.  Homosexuality is just such a case.  A great deal of research in recent years has shown that roughly 2-3% of men in the United States are homosexual (Fay, Turner, Klassen, & Gagnon, 1989; Rogers & Turner, 1991; Leigh, 1993; Billy, Tanfer, Grady, & Klepinger, 1993; Seidman & Reider, 1994; Black, Gates, Sanders, & Taylor, 2000).  The figure is even smaller for women, approximately 1-2% (Diamond, 1993; Laumann, Michael, Gagnon, & Michaels, 1994; Wellings, Field, Johnson, & Wadworth, 1994).  Thus, locating MZ twins who were separated at birth and of whom at least one twin developed a homosexual orientation is unfeasible.  Moreover, such a twin study (MZ twins reared separately) does not in fact neutralize the environment to the extent that researchers surmise.  The reason for this is that MZ twins, even if they are separated from the moment of birth forward, still shared the same, profoundly influential environment for the previous nine months.  Thus, every twin study, no matter how elegant in design, cannot fully tease apart the effects of genes and environment.

Researchers try to cope with these difficulties by comparing MZ twins who were reared together with other sibling pairs such as DZ twins, normal biological siblings, and adopted siblings with no biological relation between them.  Bailey and Pillard (1991) followed this general paradigm by examining family patterns of adult males with homosexual orientation who had either a MZ twin, DZ twin, or adopted brother.  These researchers found a concordance rate (if one twin was homosexual, the other was as well) of 52% among the male MZ twins who were reared together in the study.  The figure for female MZ twins was 48%.  Likewise, male DZ twins reared together showed a concordance rate of 22% (16% for women) but this was not significantly different from the rate for adoptive brothers (Bailey & Pillard, 1991).  What this study shows is that there may be a genetic component to homosexuality, but there appear to be substantial environmental factors as well.  Why else would the concordance rate among MZ twins be so much less than 100% and why would there be any concordance at all among adoptive brothers? 

Though far from conclusive, this study by Bailey and Pillard was highly influential.  Several such twin studies followed, and, taken together, the lowest concordances found for homosexuality among MZ twins was 47% for men and 48% for women (Bailey, Dunne, & Martin, 2000).  However, the samples of twins included in these studies were largely recruited through advertising in gay or lesbian publications.  This creates the possibility of “ascertainment bias”.  In other words, “twins deciding whether to participate in a study clearly related to homosexuality probably considered the sexual orientation of their co-twins before agreeing to participate” (Bailey et al., 2000, p. 533).  This non-random sampling, of course, would result in biased data.  Bailey, Dunne, and Martin (2000) overcame this methodological weakness by using a large sample (N=4901) of adult twins recruited from the Australian Twin Registry.  In that study, the researchers identified 27 pairs of male twins in which at least one of the men was homosexual.  However, only 3 of these pairs were concordant (both twins were homosexual).  Thus, 3 of 27 pairs of male twins (approximately 11%) were concordant on homosexuality in this systematic study.  Likewise, only 3 of 22 pairs of female twins (approximately 14%) were concordant.  These researchers conclude, “These rates are significantly lower than the respective rates for the two largest prior twin studies of sexual orientation….  This suggests that concordances from prior studies were inflated because of concordance-dependent ascertainment bias” (Bailey, et al., 2000, p. 533).  They go on to state,

Consistent with several studies of siblings… we found that sexual orientation is familial.  In contrast to most prior twin studies of sexual orientation, however, ours did not provide statistically significant support for the importance of genetic factors for that trait (p. 534).

This does not rule out the possibility that there is a genetic component to homosexuality but rather suggests that “sexual orientation is inherited, if at all, in a complex manner” (Bailey & Pillard, 1995, p.144, emphasis added).  

A second line of research examining the supposed genetic basis for homosexuality employs the molecular analysis of blood samples from relatives of homosexuals and a method called linkage analysis, which maps genes onto chromosomal regions, to identify the specific gene or genes that influence sexual orientation.  Based on evidence that “gay men have more homosexual uncles and cousins through the maternal line than on the paternal side” some researchers have attempted to identify an X-linked gene that influences male sexual orientation (Rahman & Wilson, 2003, p. 1342).  Hamer, Hu, Magnuson, Hu, and Pattatucci, (1993) initially reported findings consistent with this hypothesis that implicated the chromosomal region Xq28 in the heritability of male homosexuality.  A similar though weaker relationship was reported later by members of the same research group (Hu et al., 1995).  However, the methods used in these studies and therefore the reported results have been called into question.  Risch, Whleeler, and Keats (1993) criticized the research design and statistical methods used by Hamer et al. (1993) and asserted that their conclusions might not be supported by the data.  In addition, Rice et al. (1999) attempted to replicate the previously reported link between Xq28 and male homosexuality using similar methods in independently conducted genetic studies, but their results did not support the Xq28 hypothesis.  Indeed, these researchers stated,

It is unclear why our results are so discrepant from Hamer’s original study.  Because our study was larger than that of Hamer et al., we certainly had adequate power to detect a genetic effect as large as was reported in that study.  Nonetheless, our data do not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation at position Xq28 (Rice et al., 1999, p. 668). 

These issues were again revisited in the journal Science in 1999 (Hamer et al., 1999; Rice, Risch, & Ebers, 1999).  It is clear from these articles that because scientists are treading on new methodological ground, there is no simple solution to this question.  The methods being used in these studies have not been tested and verified in studying a trait as complex as sexual orientation.  Hamer et al. (1999) defended their approach and attempted to meta-analyze four studies in this area concluding that they collectively support the Xq28 hypothesis.  However, Rice, Risch, & Ebers (1999) pointed out that if only those studies carried out by independent investigators are considered, which is necessary to reduce potential biases, no researchers outside Hamer’s own group has found support for the Xq28 hypothesis: “Thus, the conclusion remains that the original studies of Hamer and colleagues are not replicated” (Rice, Risch, & Ebers, 1999, p. 806). 

A study conducted by Bailey et al. (1999) also examined the hypothesis that homosexuality is the result of an X-linked gene using more stringent standards in recruitment analysis than many previous studies.  Three sampling techniques were utilized:  recruitment from an HIV clinic, a gay pride parade, and through homophile publications.  All participants were interviewed about familial patterns of non-heterosexuality.  Only the sample attained through magazine advertisement knew of this purpose of the study.  The researchers found a rate of occurrence of homosexuality among brothers of a homosexual male ranging from 7.3% to 9.7%.  This suggests a modest familial (not necessarily genetic) component to the origin of male homosexuality.  Bailey et al. (1999) also found a slight increase in the appearance of female homosexuality among sisters of gay men.  However, the familial patterns of homosexuality observed in this study did not support the Xq28 hypothesis.  “This study found no evidence that male sexual orientation is influenced by an X-linked gene” (Bailey et al., 1999, p. 84). 

 One final study worth mentioning was recently conducted by Mustanski, DuPree, Nievergelt, Bocklandt, Schork, and Hamer (2005).  Using blood samples of 456 individuals from 146 unrelated families, the researchers conducted for the first time a search of the entire human genome for a genetic basis to male homosexuality.  Though three gene regions resulted in elevated values, none were large enough to generate a statistically significant result.  In addition, they found no evidence of a link to the Xq28 region.  Thus, as stated above, research into the genetic basis for homosexuality, taken as a whole, is inconclusive.  While there may be a modest heritability to such an orientation, the existence of an overriding gay gene seems highly unlikely at this time.

 Another biologically based line of research bearing on the question of the etiology of homosexuality deals with the pre-natal environment.  As already alluded to, fetal development is a remarkably crucial time in the development of the human organism.  In particular, brain systems develop rapidly during this period and are quite sensitive to hormonal and other biochemical influences.   Normally in a male child, his testes will begin producing testosterone during the fetal period which masculinizes various body structures and systems.  (Girls produce androgens as well from their adrenal glands, though usually in much smaller quantities than boys who produce them in their testes and adrenals.)  Besides the obvious differences such as genitalia, musculature, etc., this masculinzation process affects the development of various brain structures and, thus, their functions (see chap. 8 of Baron-Cohen, 2003).  The development of the child in the womb can also be influenced by the mother’s hormone levels.  It has been hypothesized that abnormal hormone levels or other deviations during the fetal period could be responsible for the development of non-heterosexual orientations (for reviews, see Mustanski, Chivers, & Bailey, 2002; Rahman & Wilson, 2003). 

 Researchers have made various attempts to study such an effect upon the development of homosexual orientations.  While for ethical reasons, experimenters cannot manipulate the hormonal milieu of the prenatal environment in humans, they can study cases in which such abnormalities occur naturally to see if a homosexual orientation is more likely to result.   In addition, a certain amount can be learned from animal studies.  Finally, somatic and neuropsychological variables known to be strongly affected by prenatal hormones can be compared in adults to see if they differ according to sexual orientation.

 All of these methods have been utilized, and it appears that in some respects, female homosexuals appear to have experienced increased prenatal androgenization compared to heterosexuals (more masculine auditory systems and waist-to-hip ratio, higher salivary testosterone levels, less desire to give birth, etc.).  Likewise, on some measures homosexual men appear to have been less androgenized than heterosexual men (more female-like pubertal onset, weight, height, cognitive spatial abilities, and language abilities; higher rates of non-right handedness).  However, on other measures homosexual men appear hypermasculine, i.e. exposed to greater quantities of androgens (more masculine relative finger lengths, possibly larger penises [according to two studies: Nedoma & Freund, 1961; Bogaert & Hershberger, 1999], and possibly hypermasculine auditory systems [see McFadden, 2002]).  Some differences in the size and shape of certain adult brain structures have also been identified across sexual orientation categories, but it is unknown whether these neural differences cause or are consequent upon homosexual lifestyles.  After all the brain is a “plastic” structure that changes throughout life in response to one’s genetic/biological endowment, experiences, and behaviors.  Thus, the data on the role of prenatal androgens are very complex, and no scholarly consensus exists on how to integrate and interpret them.  If abnormal androgen levels are what drive these differences, they appear to affect males and females differently since homosexual men and homosexual women do not always differ from their heterosexual counterparts on the same variables.  Moreover, the data on homosexual men are mixed.  Rahman and Wilson (2003) put forward the hypothesis that perhaps a genetic factor in some men alters the distribution of androgen receptors in various brain structures.  Thus, when exposed to prenatal androgens at whatever level, the result will be that some brain structures will be more masculinized than normal and others will be less masculinzed than normal because of the redistribution of the receptors.  While this makes a good deal of sense, the research has not yet shown this to be the case.

 Perhaps the most well replicated phenomenon related to the causes of homosexuality is the “fraternal birth order effect”.  To put it simply, “Several studies, which collectively examined over 7000 subjects, have shown that homosexual men have, on average, a greater number of older brothers than do comparable heterosexuals” (Ellis and Blanchard, 2001, p. 543).  Thus, something about being born later in a line of several brothers seems to increase the likelihood of male homosexuality.  Researchers believe that the fraternal birth order effect per se is not the ultimate causal factor of male homosexuality in these cases but that there is some other mechanism in place that mediates the effect.  However, what this causal mechanism is is still highly debated.  Most favor a biological explanation such as a fluctuation in prenatal androgens or increased maternal immune system response related to multiple, successive male pregnancies.  Another possibility with mixed empirical support suggests that maternal stress, which could increase with the births of multiple sons, may alter fetal development in such a way as to increase the likelihood of a homosexual orientation.  Stress hormones are in fact produced in the adrenal glands (and are therefore, androgens or at least androgen-like) and can interfere with normal fetal development.  Other explanations for the fraternal birth order effect are psychosocial in nature and posit such potential causes as ostracization of boys by older brothers or increased early sex play among boys with several older brothers (see James, 2004a; 2004b).  Presently, however, the fraternal birth order effect remains largely unexplained in the absence of any overwhelmingly conclusive evidence.  Moreover, it is important to note that according to researchers only 14.8% to 15.2% of homosexual men can attribute their orientation to this effect (Cantor, Blanchard, Paterson, & Bogaert, 2002).  Though it is a well established and easily identifiable phenomenon connected with the genesis of male homosexuality, the fraternal birth order effect does not appear to be the primary cause of homosexuality in the majority of gay men.  Nothing analogous to this effect has been found in women. 

 In light of the foregoing, it is important to recall that sexual orientation does not emerge immediately upon conception and birth but takes time to develop throughout childhood, adolescence, and even adulthood.  Thus, there is a great deal of room for experience to affect this process.  Consequently, researchers investigating the various factors discussed above agree that rather than causing homosexual orientation directly these influences likely precipitate a set of pre-homosexual traits and dispositions that in turn increases the likelihood of adult homosexuality (Bailey & Zucker, 1995; Dunne, Bailey, Kirk, & Martin, 2000).  The term coined for this is childhood gender nonconformity (CGN), which simply refers to a certain conglomeration of sex atypical traits (physical, psychological, and behavioral features).  CGN is known to be consistently associated with later homosexual orientations as well as many of the biological and familial factors discussed above (Bailey & Zucker, 1995).  However, since not everyone with CGN develops an adult homosexual orientation, there must be some environmental influences that contribute to such a development.  These could include for instance failed relationships with one’s parents and/or peers.  Indeed, classic psychodynamic theory held that male homosexuality was primarily caused by a maladaptive family pattern in which the father is weak and distant and the mother is over-controlling (roughly the reverse is posited for females).  While there has been very little data in the last 20 years supporting these specific claims, research does emphasize the importance of relationships in the development of sexual orientation.  For instance, an interesting study by Landolt, Bartholomew, Saffrey, Oram, and Perlman (2004) examined the relationship between CGN and rejection from parents and peers in a sample of 191 gay and bisexual men.  They found, “Gender nonconforming behavior in childhood was associated with maternal, paternal, and peer rejection” among these gay and bisexual men (p. 124).  Another recent study, though methodologically weak, found that among a sample of Catholic seminarians, those admitting a homosexual orientation also reported “more emotional distance from their fathers than heterosexual seminarians” (Seutter & Rovers, 2004, p. 46). 

Bem (1996; 2000) proposed a model of sexual orientation development which he dubbed the “exotic becomes erotic” theory.  He proposes that biological variables influence childhood temperaments which in turn affect a child’s degree of gender conformity.  A child who has nonconforming traits and behaviors feels him/herself to be different from peers.  This “feeling different” from same-sex peers can evolve into an erotic attraction in adolescence:

An individual’s protracted and sustained experience of feeling different from same- or opposite-sex peers throughout childhood and adolescence produces a correspondingly sustained physiological arousal that gets eroticized when the maturational, cognitive, and situational factors coalesce to provide the critical defining moment (Bem, 2000, p. 539).

While these various accounts all have merit to them and a certain ring of truth, one aspect of the development of a homosexual orientation not explicitly tapped in any of them is the role of child sexual abuse (CSA) and other early sexual experiences.  There seems to be a link between CSA perpetrated by men (or older males) against boys that predisposes these boys to later identify as homosexual.  Indeed, one reviewer states, “The effects of sexual victimization on male children, placed in the context of the prevailing concept of masculinity, include mental disorders, the probability of becoming rapists and incest offenders as adults, and the development of homosexual identification” (Vander Mey, 1988, p. 61).  Several studies support this claim.  For instance, Finkelhor (1984) found a statistically significant relationship between CSA victimization and later homosexual activity in adulthood (cited in Dimock, 1988).  In a study of 25 adult males who had been sexually abused in childhood, the majority of these men experienced “masculine identity confusion” characterized by “confusion regarding sexual preference and… male roles” (Dimock, 1988, p. 208).  Homosexual feelings and/or behaviors were common among these men.  Noting that “the literature reports that there may be a significant number of gay men who have been sexually abused as children,” Schwartz (1994) presented clinical data from eight men who had been victims of CSA.  “Six of the eight men identified themselves as homosexual in their sexual identity; two were heterosexual.  Of the two heterosexuals, one continuously questioned his sexual orientation” (Schwartz, 1994, p. 182).  Likewise, Johnson & Shrier (1985) compared 40 male victims of CSA and an age-matched control group and found that 47.5% of the CSA victims went on to develop a homosexual orientation and another 10% became bisexual.  “The study group identified themselves as currently homosexual nearly seven times as often and bisexual nearly six times as often as the control group” (Johnson & Shrier, 1985, p. 374). 

These small studies finding an increased likelihood of homosexual identification in male victims of CSA are corroborated by at least twelve more recent and systematic ones that have all documented elevated rates of CSA among homosexual men (Saewyc, Pettingell, & Skay, 2004; Kalichman et al., 2004; Ratner et al., 2003; Garcia, Adams, Friedman, & East, 2002; Dolezal & Carballo-Diéguez, 2002; Tomeo et al., 2001; Paul et al., 2001; Krahé et al., 2001; Paris et al., 1995; Doll et al., 1992; Baier et al., 1991; Haverkos, Bukoski, & Amsael, 1989; for reviews see Relf, 2001; Holmes & Slap, 1998).  For instance, using a nonclinical sample of 942 participants, Tomeo et al. (2001) found that 46% of homosexual men had been sexually abused as a child by a man.  This was significantly greater than the 7% rate found among heterosexual men in that study.  Among a sample of 307 Latin American men who have sex with men (MSM), Dolezal and Carballo-Diéguez (2002) observed “that early sexual contact [with males] is common among these men. 

Fifty-nine percent had had some sexual/genital contact prior to their 13th birthday.  In the majority of those cases, they had a partner who was at least 4 years older than they were” (p. 169-170).  Finally, in a systematic study of 2881 MSM, Paul et al. (2001) found that one fifth had experienced CSA.  They state,

Our study confirms and extends prior research indicating high prevalence levels of childhood sexual abuse (CSA) among MSM.  Such prevalence levels might be higher if we had elicited data about experiences involving non-contact sexual victimization (i.e., sexual exposure or exhibitionism).  Overall, these men’s CSA experiences were characterized by high levels of penetrative sex, physical force, and perceptions of these events as distressing (Paul et al., 2001, p. 575).

Interestingly, some research suggests that boys who have gender nonconforming traits such as effeminate physical features are rated as more attractive by adults than a control group of typical boys (Zucker, Wild, Bradley, & Lowry, 1993). 

Even in cases where such young men and boys do not report the experience as abusive, early sexual contact with other males is common prior to identifying oneself as gay.  For instance, Dawood et al. (2000) found that one third of their sample of gay men with gay brothers had engaged in sexual activity with their siblings in childhood.  “Among the 21 participants who indicated that some form of sex play occurred, levels of activity included touching and mutual masturbation (N=16), giving or receiving fellatio (N=9), and anal intercourse (N=4)” (p. 161).  A recent study of 961 Dutch gay and bisexual men “found that 68% of respondents engaged in their first same-sex experience before coming-out” (Schindhelm & Hospers, 2004, p. 585).  Another study found that 58% of homosexual and bisexual men came to their sexual identity through a sex-centered sequence, i.e. one in which same-sex activity preceded their identification as gay or bisexual (Dubé, 2000).  In a study comparing homosexual men and women, researchers discovered that homosexual men were more likely to pursue sex before identifying themselves as gay, whereas for women the context of their homosexual identity development was more emotionally oriented (Savin-Williams & Diamond, 2000). 

This last finding raises an interesting but challenging issue:  sexual orientation in men and women is markedly different and develops in divergent ways.  Summarizing research in this area, Diamond (2003) states,

Women show greater variability than men in the age at which they consciously question their sexuality, and the age at which they pursue their first same-gender sexual contact….  Also, women place less emphasis on the sexual component of their lesbian or bisexual identification, both during and after the questioning process…, and are more likely to report that their sexuality is fluid and chosen versus fixed and biologically given… (p. 185).

Thus, for men, a homosexual orientation seems to involve a strong inclination to engage in sexual activity with other men.  Whereas, for women the question of sexual orientation is much more caught up in affectional bonding and is more often a matter of conscious choice than an irresistible urge. 

 This review of the research shows us that many known factors (and there are likely still more unknown factors) are implicated in the development of homosexuality, but no one factor seems powerful enough to trump them all.  Rather, the adult homosexual has probably arrived at that orientation through a complex, idiosyncratic combination of biological, experiential, and volitional factors.  This process seems clearly divergent for men and women and likely differs from individual to individual among gays and among lesbians. 

Homosexuality & Christian Anthropology
The purpose of the foregoing discussion was to clarify the state of scientific research on the causes of homosexuality.  It is important for moralists and those responsible for public policy to be well-informed on these issues.  However, as mentioned in this paper’s introduction, these data are sometimes misused in ethical debates over homosexuality.  Primarily, some argue on the basis of science that homosexuality has a strong, inborn, biological origin.  Regardless of what combination of factors actually produced the orientation, it is believed to arise in the person without any act of the person’s choosing.  Since this disposition is apparently innate, then it must be in a sense natural.  After all, it seems to arise quite naturally in those who experience it.  If, therefore, a homosexual orientation arose by nature’s choosing – or perhaps even God’s choosing – to act on such an inclination would be to act in accord with one’s nature.  The person so inclined who adopts a homosexual lifestyle is simply behaving in an authentic way:  he/she is being true to him/herself.  The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith summarized this view by saying, “Some people conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage insofar as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life” (CDF, 1975, no. 8 emphasis added). 

 This is a legitimate argument that deserves a response.  However, Christians who hold the traditional view “that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of” (CDF, 1975) and that the homosexual orientation itself is “objectively disordered” (CCC, no. 2358) are left in a difficult position.  Some Christians seeking to avoid implying that God wills people to be homosexual and creates this orientation in them deny the role of biological causes in the etiology of homosexuality.  This is problematic for several reasons.  First of all, it is not true to scientific research which, despite inconclusiveness and other difficulties, does suggest that there are biological components (genes, prenatal effects, etc.) to homosexuality.  To deny the role of biology, then, encourages the popular view that Christianity is somehow opposed to science or that to follow Christian doctrine, one must renounce scientific rigor.  This, of course, is patently false.  Secondly, this denial is often motivated by the misguided fear that if one were to admit a biological predisposition to homosexuality, there would no longer be any basis for condemning homosexual acts.  Thirdly, arguing in this way – that homosexuality is in no way biologically inherited – leads one to commit the same mistake committed by those on the other side, namely a misuse of the concept “nature”.  This is precisely where a counter-argument should begin.

 Those who argue that homosexual inclinations are “natural” utilize a problematic understanding of nature that needs to be challenged.  This understanding of nature refers to that which is innate and unchosen within a person.  “I did not choose to be the way I am.”  “I discovered my homosexuality within me.”  Moreover, a certain normative quality is attributed to this nature such that it can and should dictate my actions.  Nature as such is good, or at least neutral in respect to ethics, so the modern mentality holds that whatever I am naturally disposed to do I should do as long as it does not involve violating the rights of others. 

A Christian anthropology, however, comes to very different conclusions about “nature”.  Human nature, in a Christian sense, does also have a normative content to it.  As the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith says, “There can be no true promotion of man’s dignity unless the essential order of his nature is respected” (CDF, 1975, no. 3).  In creating the world, God inscribed a certain order in it.  Thus, the true nature of things and their fulfillment can be understood only in light of God’s design.  This is especially salient when we are speaking of desires that arise within the human heart for Christian revelation recognizes the reality of original sin.  At the start of human history, our first parents rebelled against God’s plan and by their action, brought disorder into the world:  “Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state” (CCC, no. 404).  The Fathers of the Church taught that human nature is one and thus all human beings participate in the same nature.  Thus, when our first parents marred their likeness to God through sin, the whole human family was affected by it.  Thus, the human nature that each human being inherits is disordered.  Original sin is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it; subject to ignorance, suffering, and the dominion of death; and inclined to sin – an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence” (CCC, no. 405).

Every evil in the world is traceable back to this fundamental disruption at the beginning of time.  Indeed, another crucial aspect of Christian anthropology is that human nature involves a unity of body and soul such that the human person is not wholly identifiable with either taken separately but exists as a composite of the two.  In other words, the body and the soul are intrinsically united. 

The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body: i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature (CCC, no. 365).

Therefore, when we say that original sin has wounded human nature, this includes both physical and spiritual effects.  In this way, the doctrine of original sin can account for every sort of genetic or biological defect, disease, or disorder as well as all kinds of human suffering and inclinations to do evil.  With this understanding of fallen human nature, a Christian anthropology would have no difficulty accommodating research (past or future) implicating a substantial inherited component to homosexuality.

 Clearly, this understanding of original sin is essential when we are speaking of the moral quality of human inclinations.  Because of original sin, a certain disorder resides in the human heart such that one often desires that which is contrary to the moral law.  Therefore, even if homosexual inclinations are entirely inherited, this does not mean that they necessarily correspond with human nature in the original sense, as God intended it.  Moreover, as Christ made clear in his preaching, it is the original, created order that has normative weight to it, not this transitory fallen state: 

Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?” He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘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 they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate” (Mt 19.3-6).

Thus, the inclinations that arise in the human heart must be tested according to objective moral norms because the human nature we encounter in this age of history, though wounded by sin, is still called to the same norms of behavior intended by God “from the beginning.”  Why?  Because God created us “out of love for love” (John Paul II, 1981, no. 11); His wise, loving plan permeates all of created reality.  Therefore, to follow the norms given to us by our Creator and Redeemer is in no way an imposition or alienation but a call to happiness.  The moral law given to us by God is a blueprint by which human beings can achieve their fulfillment.  This implies another fundamental truth of Christian anthropology:  human nature is wounded, but it is not totally corrupted.  Man still has freedom.  Though weakened by sin and prone to misuse, the human person still possesses the ability to make free moral choices and, by cooperating with God’s grace, grow in holiness and maturity. 

Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s responsibility.  By free will one shapes one’s own life.  Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when direct toward God, our beatitude (CCC, no. 1731).

The proper, beatifying use of freedom requires God’s grace.  Only with His help can we properly see the truth and act in accord with it.  Thankfully, God desires all men to be saved and abundantly supplies the means for it to happen.

If a person finds himself or herself inclined to a homosexual lifestyle, this certainly is a cross to bear because it means that the person has “a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder” (CDF, 1986, no. 3).  Only in light of original sin does it make sense to say that someone could inherit an “objective disorder”.  Recall that the research on homosexuality does not conclusively show that it is inherited, but there is no need on the basis of Christian teaching to deny this possibility.  Moreover, society commonly recognizes that certain disordered propensities are inborn in some people.  For instance, there is acceptance for the notion that various pathological personality traits are heritable as well as predispositions for various addictions such as alcoholism.  Yet, these characteristics are not normalized but still held to be deviations from normal, “healthy” humanity.  In light of this, there is no justification for a priori accepting homosexual inclinations and homosexual acts as morally upright without serious rational reflection in the light of objective moral norms.

 Such a discussion, however, would be incomplete without mention of the problem of sexual identity.  Because of the language of sexual orientation prevalent in contemporary culture, there is a great deal of confusion regarding sexual identity in the fundamental sense.  Christian anthropology recognizes that there are two genders:  male and female.  This maleness or this femaleness is ontologically grounded in the human person such that the person is always one or the other and this sexual differentiation affects all areas of life.  Nonetheless, man and woman share the same human nature, though they live it and express it in two irreducibly different ways.

The importance and the meaning of sexual difference, as a reality deeply inscribed in man and woman, needs to be noted. “Sexuality characterizes man and woman not only on the physical level, but also on the psychological and spiritual, making its mark on each of their expressions”. It cannot be reduced to a pure and insignificant biological fact, but rather “is a fundamental component of personality, one of its modes of being, of manifestation, of communicating with others, of feeling, of expressing and of living human love”.  This capacity to love – reflection and image of God who is Love – is disclosed in the spousal character of the body, in which the masculinity or femininity of the person is expressed (CDF, 2004, no.8  ).

Because of original sin, deviations of this sexual difference can and do occur, but there are just that – deviations.  The problem with the language of sexual orientation is that it tends to separate sexual desire from sexual identity (the basic sexual difference of male and female).  Though one is a man, one’s sexuality need not be inclined toward women and vice versa.  This implies that all orientations are on the same anthropological and ethical standing, which the Church recognizes as false.  A homosexual inclination is “objectively disordered” (CCC, no. 2358).  This is only understood when one sees one’s biological sex and the purposes inscribed in it as fundamentally intrinsic to one’s personal identity.  In other words, sexual identity consists in being male or female, and within these two irreducible ways of being human, there is no room for a multiplicity of sexual orientations.  The fact that such orientations exist is, once again, a result of original sin.  The way to overcome the power of sin is not to normalize all the deviations and disorders that it produces but to persevere in seeking and living by the truth with the unfailing help of God’s grace.

Homosexual persons are called to chastity.  By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection (CCC, no. 2359).

Rather than embracing one’s disordered desires with reckless abandon, they must be submitted to the truth, and thus gradually transformed into dispositions of virtue.  Only in doing so, can one’s fallen human nature slowly grow toward its proper perfection bringing with it true freedom and happiness.  Accordingly, persons with homosexual tendencies cannot find true happiness in embracing their disordered orientation as their core identity and the guiding light of their lifestyle, but rather they are called to live their sexuality in integrity precisely as a man or as a woman according to the truth of the divine plan.  This truth is rooted in God Himself Who created us, holds us in being, and bears our destiny within Himself.  Thus, to seek chastity according to God’s plan is not an imposition of arbitrary norms but the inner condition of attaining the fulfillment desired by every human heart.  Though it may be a long difficult road, as the late Karol Wojtyla stated, “Chastity is the sure way to happiness” (Wojtyla, 1960, p. 172).

References

Baier, J., Rosenzweig, M., & Whipple, E. (1991). Patterns of sexual behavior, coercion, and victimization of university students. Journal of College Student Development, 32(4), 310-322.    

Bailey, J. M., Dunne, M. P., & Martin, N. G. (2000). Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 524-536.

Bailey, J. M. & Pillard, R. C. (1991). A genetic study of male sexual orientation. Archives of General Psychiatry, 48, 1089-1096.

Bailey, J. M. & Pillard, R. C. (1995). Genetics of human sexual orientation. Annual Review of Sex Research, 6, 126-150.

Bailey, J. M., Pillard, R. C., Dawood, K., Miller, M. B., Farrer, L. A., Trivedi, S., & Murphy, R. L. (1999). A family history study of male sexual orientation using three independent samples. Behavior Genetics, 29(2), 79-86.

Bailey, J. M., Pillard, R. C., Neale, M. C., Agyei, Y. (1993). Heritable factors influence sexual orientation in women. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 217-223.

Bailey, J. M. & Zucker, K. J. (1995). Childhood sex-typed behaviour and sexual orientation: a conceptual analysis and quantitative review. Developmental Psychology, 31, 43-55.

Baron-Cohen, S. (2003). The Essential Difference: The Truth About the Male and Female Brain. New York: Basic Books.

Bem, D. J. (1996). Exotic becomes erotic: A developmental theory of sexual orientation. Psychological Review, 103, 320-335.

Bem, D. J. (2000). Exotic becomes erotic: Interpreting the biological correlates of sexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29(6), 531-548.

Billings, P. & Beckwith, J. (1993). Born gay? Technology Review 96(5), 60-62.

Billy, J. O. G., Tanfer, K., Grady, W. R., & Klepinger, D. H. (1993). The sexual behavior of men

in the United States. Family Planning Perspectives, 25(2), 52-60.

Black, D., Gates, G., Sanders, S., & Taylor, L. (2000). Demographics of the gay and lesbian

population in the United States: Evidence from available systematic data sources. Demography, 37(2), 139-154.

Bogaert, A. F. & Hershberger, S. (1999). The relation between sexual orientation and penile size. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 28, 213-221.

Botnick, M. R., & Hogg, R. S. (2003). Non-consensual sex experienced by men who have sex with men: Prevalence and association with mental health. Patient Education & Counseling, 49(1), 67-74.

Cantor, J. M., Blanchard, R., Paterson, A. D., & Bogaert, A. F. (2002). How many gay men owe their sexual orientation to fraternal birth order? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31(1), 63-71.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (1997). Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1975). Declaration on certain questions concerning sexual ethics. Boston: Pauline Books & Media.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1986). Letter on the pastoral care of homosexual persons. Boston: Pauline Books & Media.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (2004). Letter n the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World. Retrieved from http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/ on 4/29/05.

Dawood, K., Pillard, R. C., Horvath, C., Revelle, W., & Bailey, J. M. (2000). Familial aspects of male homosexuality. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29(2), 155-163.

Diamond, M. (1993). Homosexuality and bisexuality in different populations. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 22, 291-310.

Diamond, L. M. (2003). What does sexual orientation orient? A biobehavioral model distinguishing romantic love and sexual desire. Psychological Review, 110(1), 173-192.

Dimock, P. T. (1988). Adult males sexually abused as children. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 3(2), 203-221.

Dolezal, C. & Carbaloo-Diéguez, A. (2002). Childhood sexual experiences and the perception of abuse among Latino men who have sex with men. The Journal of Sex Research, 39(3), 165-173.

Doll, L. S., Joy, D., Bartholow, B. N., Harrison, J. S., Bolan, G., Douglas, J. M., Saltzman, L. E., Moss, P. M., & Delgado, W. (1992). Self-reported childhood and adolescent sexual abuse among adult homosexual and bisexual men. Child Abuse & Neglect, 16(6), 855-864.

Dubé, E. M. (2000). The role of sexual behavior in the identification process of gay and bisexual males. The Journal of Sex Research, 37(2), 123-132.

Dunne, M. P., Bailey, J. M., Kirk, K. M., & Martin, N. G. (2000) The subtlty of sex-atypicality. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29(6), 549-565.

Ellis, L. & Blanchard, R. (2001). Birth order, sibling sex ratio, and maternal miscarriages in homosexual and heterosexual men and women. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 543-552.

Fay, R., Turner, C., Klassen, A., & Gagnon, J. (1989). Prevalence and patterns of same-gender sexual contact among men.  Science, 243, 338-348.

Finkelhor, D. (1984). Child Sexual Abuse: New Theory and Research. New York: The Free Press.

Garcia, J., Adams, J., Friedman, L., & East, P. (2002). Links between past abuse, suicide ideation, and sexual orientation among San Diego college students. Journal of American College Health, 51(1), 9-14.

Hamer, D. H. (1999). Genetics of male sexual orientation. Science, 285(5429), 803.

Hamer, D. H., Hu, S., Magnusson, V., Hu, N., & Pattatucci, A. M. L. (1993). A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation. Science, 261, 321-327.

Hamer, D. H., Hu, S., Magnusson, V., Hu, N., & Pattatucci, A. M. L. (1993). Response to Risch et al. Science, 262, 2065.

Haverkos, H. W., Bukoski, W. J., & Amsel, Z. (1989). The initiation of male homosexual behavior. Journal of the American Medical Association, 262(4), 501.

Holmes, W. C. & Slap, G. B. (1998). Sexual abuse of boys: Definition, prevalence, correlates, sequelae, and management. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280(21), 1855-1862.

Hu, S., Pattatucci, A. M. L., Patterson, C., Li, L., Fulker, D. W., Cherny, S. S., Kruglyak, L., & Hamer, D. H. (1995). Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females. Nature Genetics, 11, 248-256.

James, W. H. (2004). A further note on the causes of the fraternal birth order effect in male homosexuality. Journal of Biosocial Science, 36, 61-62.

James, W. H. (2004). The cause(s) of the fraternal birth order effect in male homosexuality. Journal of Biosocial Science, 36, 51-59.

John Paul II (1981). Familiaris Consortio. Boston, MA: Pauline Books and Media.

Johnson, R. L. & Shrier, D. K. (1985). Sexual victimization of boys. Journal of Adolescent Health Care, 6(5), 372-376.

Kalichman, S. C., Gore-Felton, C., Benotsch, E., Cage, M., & Rompa, D. (2004). Trauma symptoms, sexual behaviors, and substance abuse: Correlates of childhood sexual abuse and HIV risks among men who have sex with men. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 13(1), 1-15.

Krahé, B., Scheinberger-Olwig, R., & Schütze, S. (2001). Risk factors of sexual aggression and victimization among homosexual men. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(7), 1385-1408.

Landolt, M. A., Bartholomew, K., Saffrey, C., Oram, D., & Perlman, D. (2004). Gender nonconformity, childhood rejection, and adult attachment: A study of gay men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 33(2), 117-128.

Leigh, B.C. (1993). The sexual behavior of U.S. adults: Results from a national survey. American Journal of Public Health, 83, 1400-1406.

Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

McFadden, D. (2002). Masculinization effects in the auditory system. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31, 93-105.

Mustanski, B. S., Chivers, M. L., & Bailey, J. M. (2002). A critical review of recent biological research on human sexual orientation. Annual Review of Sex Research, 13, 89-140.

Mustanski, B. S., DuPree, M. G., Nievergelt, C. M., Bocklandt, S., Schork, N. J., and Hamer, D. (2005). A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation. Human Genetics (online version). Retrieved from http://springerlink.metapress.com on 3/1/05.

Nedoma, K. & Freund, K. (1961). Somatosexual findings in homosexual men. Ceskoslovenska Psychiatre, 57, 100-103.

Paul, J. P., Catania, J., Pollack, L., & Stall, R. (2001). Understanding childhood sexual abuse as a predictor of sexual risk-taking among men who have sex with men: The Urban Men’s Health Study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25, 557-584.

Paris, J., Zweig-Frank, H., & Guzder, J. (1995). Psychological factors associated with homosexuality in males with Borderline Personality Disorder. Journal of Personality Disorders, 9(1), 56-61.

Rahman, Q. & Wilson, G. D. (2003). Born gay? The psychobiology of human sexual orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 1337-1382.

Ratner, P. A., Johnson, J. L., Shoveller, J. A., Chan, K., Martindale, S. L., Schilder, A. J.,

Relf, M. V. (2001). Childhood sexual abuse in men who have sex with men: The current state of the science. Journal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, 12(5), 20-29.

Rice, G., Anderson, C., Risch, N., & Ebers, G. (1999). Male homosexuality: Absence of linkage to microsatellite markers at Xq28. Science, 284(5414), 665-667.

Rice, G., Risch, N., & Ebers, G. (1999). Response to Hamer. Science, 285(5429), 803.

Risch, N., Squires-Wheeler, E., & Keats, B. J. B. (1993). Male sexual orientation and genetic evidence. Science, 262, 2063-2064.

Rogers, S. & Turner, C. (1991) Male-male sexual contact in the U.S.A.: Findings from five sample surveys, 1970 – 1990. Journal of Sex Research, 28, 491-519.

Saewyc, E. M., Pettingell, S. L., & Skay, C. L. (2004). Hazards of stigma: The sexual and physical abuse of gay, lesbian, and bisexual adolescents in the U.S. and Canada. Journal of Adolescent Health, 34(2), 115-116.

Savin-Williams, R. C. & Diamond, L. M. 2000. Sexual identity trajectories in sexual minority youth: Gender comparisons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 607-628.

Schindhelm, R. K. & Hospers, H. J. (2004). Sex with men before coming-out: relation to sexual activity and sexual risk-taking behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 33(6), 585-591.

Schwartz, M. (1994). Negative impact of sexual abuse on adult male gender: Issues and strategies of intervention. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 11(3), 179-194.

Seidman, S. H. & Reider, R. O. (1994). A review of sexual behavior in the United States. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 151(3), 330-339.

Seutter, R. A. & Rovers, M. (2004). Emotionally absent fathers: Furthering the understanding of homosexuality. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 32(1), 43-49.

Tomeo, M. E., Templer, D. I., Anderson, S., & Kotler, D. (2001). Comparative data of childhood and adolescence molestation in heterosexual and homosexual persons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 30(5), 535-541.

Vander Mey, B. J. (1988). The sexual victimization of male children: A review of previous research. Child Abuse & Neglect, 12(1), 61-72.

Wellings, K., Field, J., Johnson, A. M., & Wadworth, J. (1994). Sexual Behavior in Britain: The National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.

Wojtla, K. (1960). Love and Responsibility. San Francisco: Ignatius Press.

Zucker, K. J., Wild, J., Bradley, S. J. & Lowry, C. B. (1993) Physical attractiveness of boys with gender identity disorder. Archives of Sexual Behavior 22, 23–36.

          
Copyright ©; Andrew J. Sodergren 2005

Version: 25th May 2005

8 comments

  1. In a (fairly hasty) perusal of this article, I thought it quite reasonable and cogent up to the point at which it adduced the tale of Adam and Eve as an argument. “At the start of human history, our first parents rebelled against God’s plan.” There it lost me as surely as if it had been a Protestant Creationist tract. The myth of Eden is powerful and valuable, but it is a parable, and arguing from the concept of original sin as though the Fall were an actual historical event is simply absurd.


    • I have a wonderful article by Fr. Edward Oakes that takes up original sin with all its warts. I haven’t posted it yet because it is way too long and he uses a Thomistic method to deal with it which makes for some difficult reading. All that to one side, however, here is a quote from it that might give you pause to so summarily reject the doctrine of original sin — many things I’ve read about original sin also take this same tack. To whit:
      “It might sound intolerably paradoxical to say this, but it is precisely the very harm that sometimes comes from the doctrine of original sin that proves its validity. This is a point made time and again by Leszek Kolakowski, the Polish emigré intellectual now at the University of Chicago, author of a three-volume history of Marxist thought and a man who therefore knows something of the harm visited upon the human community by doctrines of progressivism. In his recent book of essays, Modernity on Endless Trial, he shrewdly notes how this third objection to original sin can be turned into a supporting argument:
      The possible disastrous effects of the concept of original sin on our psychological condition and on our cultural life are undeniable [because of its use to keep people "in their place" and not alter unjust social structures]; and so are the disastrous effects of the opposing doctrine, with its implication that our perfectibility is limitless, and that our predictions of ultimate synthesis or total reconciliation can be realized. However, the fact that both affirmation and rejection of the concept of original sin have emerged as powerful destructive forces in our history is one of many that testify in favor of the reality of original sin. In other words, we face a peculiar situation in which the disastrous consequences of assenting to either of two incompatible theories confirm one of them and testify against its rival.”


    • [In reply to Myopic Bookworm...]
      Thank you for saying it for me. I’m a Christian with a Jewish background, and I honestly still can’t believe that Christians and Jews still believe that Adam and Eve, Eden and the whole Creation actually happened as illustrated in the bible, and aren’t just parables. I think, with our better understanding of the world through science, we are not losing any sense of mystery about our origins or our nature – if anything, science throws further mystery into the picture. Why is that seemingly still explained to Christians, Jews, Muslims et al by their preachers using parables that are now thousands of years old? No wonder Christianity is struggling to retain believers these days – stupidly so considering the number of gay people I know who like anyone else, could do with the support of the Church in the context of their very ordinary and unremarkable lives… The second half of this article totally alienates gay people from Christianity altogether which as a heterosexual woman, I find incredibly sad indeed since I believe everyone is invited to receive God’s grace freely.


      • [In reply to both myopic bookworm, just difficult]

        Hello “justdifficult”
        Before I begin here, let me disavow myself from the crude historical notion that is often found in the Christian fundamentalist approach to history, whereby everything that happened in the Bible actually occurred, including such obvious fables as Jonah and the Whale. You and myopicbookworm seem to advocate for a scientism that pronounces just the opposite extreme, namely that the parables or myths of the bible could never really actually occurred and that to indulge ourselves to regard them as truth is “absurd.”

        If I may, I would like to introduce you to a third position, one that most of the authors of the posts you see on this blog are using, namely Mythopoetic Thinking:

        “There are contested interpretations of what constitutes myth, and it might in consequence seem impossible to overcome vagueness in describing “mythopoetic thinking.” The commonly held understanding of it is that myth is narrative or story. Louis Bouyer does not reject outright this common view, but he follows the phenomenologist and historian of religion Mircea Eliade (1907-1986) in finding a more precise understanding of it. With Eliade, he sees myth in its historical sense as a religious reality. Myth, he argues, is a narrative or story, but it is no mere fable or expression of infantile consciousness. Its referents are objective reality and the innermost experience of man’s subjectivity. Myth moves in both of these ultimate directions at once as it narrates the sacred history of the origin of the world and of man.”

        Both Eliade and Bouyer hold that human consciousness is fundamentally oriented to seeing ultimate reality as a unified whole and as essentially personal. It is appropriately expressed in its objectivity through myth. In a manner reminiscent of Martin Heidegger’s later writings on art and poetry, both men see in mythopoetic experience man’s greatest openness to reality. Bouyer holds that this experience, which he calls “mythopoetic thinking” (pensées mythopoétique ), is the perceptual and noetic activity of man that is essential to the expression of true and synthetic cosmology. By means of it, we know the world to be an “essentially integrated whole”:

        Mythopoetic thinking approaches cosmic reality first through a sure instinct that there exists a spontaneous accord between our spirit and that reality, then through the very quality which allows our spirit to grasp reality, not only from one specific and superficial viewpoint, but by means of a deep sympathy with its inner structure and its fundamental evolution.
        Martin Heidegger, Poetry, Language, Thought

        The mythopoetic element of human reflection, in this understanding, does not rigidly split the world into a dichotomy of subject and object or seek the meaning of the whole through rational analysis alone. It directly senses the “accord between our spirit” and the cosmos. The very structure of the world and its physical development is thereby intuited to be synchronous to the human subject.

        This intuitive, experiential manner of thinking sees the cosmos in its origin, order, unity, and destiny with reference to man and, at least vaguely, with reference to a personal and transcendent source of finite existence. It has been ruthlessly excoriated throughout much of the modern age, which presumes through science to show the truth of the world by studying it in terms of self-establishing and self-related physical nature. Much modern thought has reacted against this reductionist view.

        Many eminent philosophers, especially following in the line of the insights of the nineteenth-century German tradition, have recognized that scientific objectivism or reductionism leads to an unbridgeable disjunction between the world-in-itself and subjective experience. This disjunction undermines the possibility of recognizing as a rational accomplishment the very science that is construed to be the path to demythologizing enlightenment. Scientific reductionism tends to “bifurcate” nature.”

        This argument is the same one that JRR Tolkien introduced to his friend CS Lewis back on the 19th of September in 1931. A Joseph Pearse post that explains what happened is here: (http://payingattentiontothesky.com/2011/07/21/the-friendship-and-true-myth/)

        I hope that sets the record straight. Nothing I post here is of the crude Christian fundamentalist reasoning that you and myopicbookworm discard with your equally crude scientism.

        And as for “insulting” gay people, please. There is nothing in this well-reasoned, scholarly article that insults or disparages, so kindly take your Homosexualist activism elsewhere.
        dj


  2. Having read the other articles on freedom which includes even the freedom to hate evil , seems this might be an area of good payback in finding a basic cause for this issue ; true, there are no easy ways to measure hatred /evil ; yet , men with older siblings in unhealthy families , CSA clients all possibly carry an inordinate amount of that agent of hatred ; being made aware of all areas of such hatred , being given the freedom to hate that unhealthy hatred , to ‘cast it off ‘ through much prayer and a healthy Father relationship , with our Lord who reveals The Father ,closer relatiosnhip with Mother Mary , all these could be of help so that these persons of familal spirits of hatred to be set free , to be true men again and to rid society of such an area of a bastion of satanic hatred being perpetuated !


  3. I agree with an earlier poster that the article’s reliance on the Adam and Eve myth — which is NOT synonymous to, nor necessary for, a discussion of a doctrine of original sin — damages its claim to scientific impartiality, although I was first deterred even earlier, when the author slammed “researchers who examine the causes of homosexuality [and] are often unable to refrain from commenting on the ethical debate.” Of course, in stating that his own project is an “attempt to show that a Christian anthropology can account for these findings without compromising a firm ethical stance on homosexual acts and inclinations,” he already announces a hidden agenda. For instance, his phrasing makes me suspicious when he writes, “This is a legitimate argument that deserves a response. However, Christians who hold the traditional view…are left in a difficult position.” His subsequent reliance on pure theology, without any recourse to scientific or sociological data, means that he puts an allegiance to the “traditional view” before an allegiance to impartiality.

    There are a number of red herrings and non sequiturs made on the methodological level in this text, and they betray a mediocre analytical ability. For example: “A recent study of 961 Dutch gay and bisexual men found that 68% of respondents engaged in their first same-sex experience before coming-out,” he writes, in an effort to persuade us that homosexuality has its origins in nature. But which is indicative of a homosexual nature: one’s “coming out” (which in most cases is hindered and delayed by societal expectations), or one’s willingness or desire to engage in a same-sex experience?

    On a theological level, I find his argumentation also frustrating, and bland. He rightly invokes such concepts as the unity of body and soul and the effects on this unity of original sin, but hasn’t the imagination necessary to to go beyond the notion that all this can mean is that a statistically deviant sexuality is a sinful one. Let’s first reason theologically. If we are to believe Jesus that “in Heaven, there shall be no marriage, but we shall all be like angels” — ungendered, I suppose — then don’t we have to accept that ALL sexuality, premised as it is upon a sexual difference native only to a postlapsarian world, is stained by original sin? “Natural law” doesn’t mean that heterosexual attraction and marriage is a Heavenly paradigm; it means that it’s the way of the world, and is in fact so imperfect that Jesus takes paints to tell us that it *won’t* be the way of Heaven. (By analogy: one of the consequences of the Fall, in Genesis, is that men will “dominate” women; in history this has indeed looked like a “natural law.” It doesn’t mean that we should accept it. Why is heteronormativity non-negotiable when male dominance over women, by any reasonable standard, is not?)

    But really, apart from theology, the best sociological and anthropological research today suggests that the idea that “maleness or femaleness is ontologically grounded in the human person such that the person is always one or the other” is incomplete. Yes, there are “two genders” (generally speaking; the existence of hermaphrodites complicates this a bit). But it is equally clear from a look at the facts that, whatever their causes, there are multiple sexual orientations. This study has done little to persuade me that the “disorder” of homosexuality, from a Darwinian point of view, equals a moral or ethical disorder, or that actions are unethical simply per force of violating a Darwinian principle.

    Peace,
    Nicholas


  4. [...] for sexual inclination – but that doesn’t mean only family factors are involved. In his Christian appraisal of the data, Andrew Sodergren (now a psychologist) explains that same-sex attraction “arises from a complex, [...]



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 260 other followers

%d bloggers like this: