Pope John Paul II’s "Theology of the Body": Implications for understanding same-sex attraction and same-sex acts by Mary Shivanandan

The issue of homosexuality—same sex attraction—is not a new one. Its presence throughout human history is well documented. The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines “homosexuality” as “relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures.” [1]

The issue of same-sex attraction has become more public and more conflicted since the advent of the so-called “sexual liberation” movement in the West in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Through the influence of mass media the issue of homosexuality, and the subculture existing around it, has gone public. Most programs on prime-time television in the United States raise the issue weekly, usually depicting the homosexual lifestyle as just one more option among many. “Gay” has gained acceptability and in recent years it has become fashionable to “come-out.” Some groups claim that one can be a faithful Catholic and live an active homosexual lifestyle. Members of groups of “Gay and Lesbian Catholics” march in “gay rights” parades that have become regular events in many cities. Some states have changed their laws to prevent “discrimination” on the grounds of “sexual orientation.” Several European nations and U.S. states extended legal status to same-sex partnership. Homosexual couples gained the right to adopt children in some states.

Now an organized and well-financed campaign is working through legislatures and courts to legally redefine the civil institution of “marriage.” The recent Massachusetts Supreme Court decision was a significant step for those advocating such a change. Within the Catholic Church some gay-advocacy groups are seeking the same change in the Church’s understanding of marriage as a sacrament. [2]

My experience as a high school teacher and as chaplain of a local chapter of Courage has raised my own consciousness about these issues. I believe it is accurate to say that most Catholic adolescents today do not understand the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. They might say that the Church “is against” homosexual acts and “not against” the homosexual person. But in most cases they do not know why the Church teaches as she does. This ignorance is compounded by the media-blitz mentioned above. Many young Catholics I know are suffering from a combination of ignorance about Church teaching and over-saturation by the “gay-agenda” in mass media. They wonder if the Church is lacking compassion and “behind the times.” I believe that this is true for much of the Catholic adult population as well.

The theological watershed we now call “The Theology of the Body” is also largely unknown among most American Catholics. It has been less than thirty years since Pope John Paul II delivered these teachings in a series of addresses at his regular Wednesday general audiences. Some of his thinking has “trickled down” to the pulpits and classrooms of the Church. But much work needs to be done to announce this “good news” and have it become part of the fabric of Catholic life.

This paper will reflect on issues raised by the problem of same-sex attraction and same-sex acts in light of John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body.” Its purpose will be to apply the key themes of the Holy Father’s theology to these issues, relying on the text of the audiences and the growing amount of theological reflection being done on his view of the meaning of the human body, sexuality, and the conjugal bond.

We begin with an examination of the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality as found in the Catechism. After giving the definition, cited in the Introduction of this paper, the article observes that the causes of homosexual inclination are unclear: “Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.” The Church’s tradition, “basing itself on Scripture, has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.” [3] The Catechism affirms that those who experience homosexual tendencies ought to be respected with compassion and sensitivity and it condemns any injustice toward them. [4] Finally, homosexual persons are called to chastity and are encouraged to live a life of “virtuous self-mastery with the help of disinterested friendships, prayer, and sacramental grace, to approach Christian perfection.” [5]

In a letter “On the Pastoral Care of the Homosexual Person” the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith affirmed that homosexual attraction, while not sinful, “is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.” [6] William E. May comments on the use of the term “objective disorder” as applied not only to the act, but to the inclination: “I suggest that we might consider the inclination as a specific manifestation of the concupiscence that comes from sin (original sin) and leads to sin but is itself not a sin, just as are inclinations to be violent or to drink in excess.” [7] John Finnis’ excellent article provides a comprehensive explanation of the “disorder” of homosexual acts, and demonstrates why this term is an accurate description of the moral situation. [8]

The Church’s traditional teaching is grounded in Scripture. For a Christian, Scripture is always read in light of faith in Jesus Christ. For this reason the Old and New Testaments are read as related, and not in isolation from one another. For the Catholic, the truth of revelation is experienced in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium—the guidance of the Teaching Church. These work together to communicate the truth about man and the truth about God.

Pope John Paul chose to begin his instructions on the theology of the body with a citation of several passages from the book of Genesis. Later in the final part of this paper, we will see how he develops these passages and demonstrates how they illustrate God’s plan for human sexuality.

In the second chapter of Genesis we see that the man and the woman are united from the beginning, since God creates Eve “out of Adam.” Adam’s reaction is significant: “This, at last, is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh.” They are “for each other.” These passages in Genesis illustrate the plan of God: we are made male and female, and the relationship of the two is fertile because it will bear fruit in children. That God made a man and a woman is the starting point for understanding human sexuality. God’s plan is fulfilled in the fruitfulness of the man-woman relationship. Jesus clearly saw the relationship created by God “in the beginning” as normative. [9]

Many other passages in the Old and New Testaments contain teachings about the male-female relationship, sexuality, and marriage. Several passages speak specifically about homosexuality. These are cited by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, [10] and by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. [11] The passages are Genesis 19:1-29, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1: 24-27, 1 Corinthians 6:10, 1 Timothy 1:10. According to the Catechism, Scripture teaches that homosexual acts are “acts of great depravity.” [12]

The story of Sodom speaks of a sin that “is very grave” and that “cries to heaven” (Genesis 18:20 –19:29). Traditional Catholic understanding of this passage has been that it included a condemnation of the men who wanted to have sexual relations with Lot’s male guests. The Leviticus passages involve the codes of morality and of religious purity. In Romans Paul condemns the behavior of men who have darkened their minds to God’s truth. Thus they are left

In First Corinthians the Apostle includes “homosexuals” among those “who will not inherit the kingdom” (1 Corinthians 6:10). The first letter to Timothy contains the same message for “sodomites” (1 Timothy 1:10).

Kevin Miller has evaluated the scriptural condemnations of homosexual behavior and comments on the view of some who have “re-interpreted” the Church’s long-held understanding of these passages:

Through the period of the Fathers and into the Middle Ages Catholic teaching consistently held that homosexual acts are immoral. In the teaching of St. Thomas we see an important development. In the Summa Theologiae, II, II, Q. 154, art. 18, Thomas takes up the question whether homosexual acts are the worst among the sins of lust. After raising the customary objections he comes to his conclusion. His teaching would be significant for the Catholic understanding of why homosexual acts are sinful and disordered:

When reading St. Thomas we must be careful not to misinterpret what he means by “unnatural.” This does not flow from a purely physical understanding of the body or of the act. For example, someone might say that a homosexual act is “unnatural” because of the biology and physiology involved in performing the act. They find the act unnatural (meaning “offensive” or “disgusting”) because “natural” intercourse is an act involving the penis and the vagina, not the penis and some other orifice. Before considering the homosexual act, let us consider the act of heterosexual intercourse, an act that is meant for the conjugal bond. A correct understanding of the meaning and purpose of heterosexual intercourse will assist an evaluation of the moral quality of homosexual acts.

The Church teaches (with ample weight from scripture and tradition) that God created human beings and the institution of marriage with a plan in mind. Marriage is a good in itself; it is not a means to an end. The purpose God had in mind when he instituted marriage as a natural institution (before the institution of the sacramental economy) is a natural good with a natural purpose: the good of the spouses and the procreation of children. As designed by the Creator, the conjugal act is given to married couples as the mode of physical expression for those goods of marriage. Therefore, any sexual act that would distort or fail to complete the conjugal act is an offense against the good (i.e., marriage) that the act (i.e., sexual intercourse) is meant to express. This forms the bedrock of the Church’s teaching on marriage and on sex in general. Church teaching promotes the good of marriage.

Christian marriage respects the personality, individuality, and equality of the spouses. The marital union is not a blending of the man and the woman into one person, nor is it absorption of the woman’s personality into that of the man or vice-versa. It is a mutual and exclusive commitment and a lasting bond in which the partners retain their personal integrity. By the nature of their commitment they share everything: love, honor, mutual submission, good times, bad times, sickness, health, security and poverty. This is more than a contract, for it is a covenant in which their hearts, minds, wills and bodies are shared in self-giving. Through the physical expression of this commitment, the conjugal act that is of its nature open to fruitfulness, they form the basic unit of human society—the family—and the basic unit of the Church—the domestic Church. The act of sexual intercourse is not a “conjugal act” unless it is constituted by mutual self-giving in a selfless way and open to that fertility that is God-given. An act of intercourse done by a man “to” his wife in order to express power or domination, or only to obtain sexual pleasure, is not a conjugal act. An act that withholds fertility may be “sexual intercourse” but it would not be a conjugal act.

For these reasons acts of sexual intercourse between non-married persons (fornication), and sexual intercourse of a married person with someone other than the spouse (adultery), offend against the good of marriage and are immoral. Likewise, acts of sexual intercourse between spouses that involve contraception (i.e., acts that intentionally interrupt, frustrate, or remove the fertile aspect) are offenses against the good of marriage and are immoral. These acts involve a distortion of sexual intercourse as it was designed as the natural expression of married love. They are all sins of lust because they involve a distorted use of the marital act and violate the good of marriage.

One could object, “How does a private act between two consenting adults attack the good of marriage as an institution, or the good of those who are in the marriage?” Finnis has an excellent answer to this question. He begins by demonstrating what fornication or adultery does to a relationship, and then goes on to relate this to the effects on society and married people at large:

In light of this understanding of why misuse of sexual intercourse inside or outside of marriage opposes the goods of marriage, and is thus an immoral act, we now examine the morality of homosexual acts. If the sexual faculty is given for use in the conjugal act of sexual intercourse, it is immoral to use one’s sexual powers to have intercourse outside of the conjugal act of a married couple. However, the act being performed (natural intercourse between a man and a woman) remains the kind of an act that, of its nature, has the potential to lead to the procreation of children. But if one uses his or her sexual powers outside of the context of the act of natural sexual intercourse, it is not only immoral but also unnatural. Such an act not only violates the good of marriage, but it violates the natural purpose of the sexual organs and the sexual power. It uses the power not for the purpose for which it was created (natural sexual intercourse, which is that kind of an act which of its nature can lead to the procreation of children), but uses the sexual faculty to perform and complete an act contrary to the purpose for which the sexual powers are intended. [17]

Since the good of marriage is an intrinsic good, and homosexual acts are neither conjugal nor natural, they oppose the good of marriage. That is why St. Thomas judged that homosexual acts are more grave than adultery, fornication or even heterosexual incest. A homosexual act is a double-distortion. It is distortion of the purpose for which the sexual faculty was given, i.e., to perform sexual intercourse and it is a distortion of the conjugal act that any act of sexual intercourse ought to be. Since the homosexual act violates an intrinsic good, it is therefore intrinsically evil.

We have seen that the homosexual act is disordered and unnatural. A further aspect of the act that bears a closer examination is the matter of fertility. If the conjugal act is an act of intercourse, which of its nature has the potential to express the goods of marriage (namely, the unity of the couple and openness to procreation), we must look at the issue of fertility.

Since the homosexual act cannot in any way be open to procreation, it can never be a conjugal act. Homosexual sex is per se infertile. Nothing can be done to change that, even with an investment of a substantial amount of time and money through today’s “reproductive technology.” If a “pair-bond” of two women were to conceive a child through artificial means (e.g., IVF with sperm from a “donor” [18]), the sexual acts they perform with one another—even if motivated by a desire for the human goods of friendship and affection—are not conjugal acts. The acts do not carry the potential for procreation. The fact that one of them becomes pregnant has nothing to do with their sexual acts, nor do their sexual acts have any possibility of leading to pregnancy. In the same way, if two men have sexual relations, even for what they consider a good motive, the acts they do remain, in and of themselves, infertile acts. Were two women successful in conceiving a child through heterologous artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization, the fact remains that “two women” did not conceive the child. Only one of the women conceived a child through the use of semen obtained from a third party, and two women intend to think of the child as their own.

The resulting child has been used instrumentally to create a simulation of “family.” This is not to say that the couple would not intend to care for and love the child. But Benedict Ashley is concerned about the impact of this situation on the children of such a couple:

Fr. Ashley’s observations answer many points raised by advocates of the gay lifestyle.

In Catholic circles, some moralists attempt to argue that the committed homosexual bond is more similar to heterosexual marriage than it is different. In general these advocates seem to take one of two approaches.

The first approach, represented by writers such as Charles Curran and other proportionalists, reject the basic teaching of St. Thomas and subsequent developments in Catholic morality, including that of the Catechism and John Paul II’s 1993 encyclical Veritatis Splendor. Catholic teaching holds that there are some acts that are intrinsically evil. In other words, there are acts that are of their nature always sinful. St. Thomas shows that there are, in the Decalogue, commands that are universally binding (like the command to honor God), and other acts that are universally forbidden (like murder of the innocent.) Certain acts remain evil even if performed for a good intention. Proportionalists hold that an evil act can be performed to achieve a good, or even to avoid a lesser evil. Using this logic one might justify the homosexual acts of a “committed couple” by pointing to the good they were seeking and achieving (for example, expression of affection, strengthening their bond, and increasing charity.) They might also refer to the evil the couple may be avoiding (for example, sexual promiscuity, exposure to sexually transmitted diseases, and other dangers.) While Curran agrees that homosexual union falls short of the ideal, his “theology of compromise” argues that persons in a difficult situation ought to weigh the goods and decide accordingly. [20]

Other writers focus more on intention than on the proportion of good and evil. One who advanced this kind of thinking was the late John McNeill. McNeill held that nothing in and of itself is morally wrong. Acts, he taught, are neutral. What gives the act moral quality is the human choice. Fr. John Harvey [21] summarizes the McNeill position succinctly: “A sexual act between two loving persons is an end in itself and an expression of radical freedom. It does not have to consider the procreative purpose of human sexuality. Indeed men and women can use their bodily organs in many creative ways…The point is that man has the freedom to decide how he will use his powers.” [22]

McNeill believed that lasting homosexual union was a valid alternative to heterosexual marriage. Fr. Harvey points out that this idealized notion of a long-term committed homosexual relationship demonstrates “how far he is from daily life,” where the vast majority of homosexuals “do not desire and do not seek” [23] this kind of a faithful union.”

The moral teaching of writers like John McNeill would hold that if one performs an act with is a good intention (e.g., to show affection), the act is a noble one. Some would hold that no sexual act could be ruled evil in itself, providing that the one performing it had a good intention. Obviously, this runs counter to the Church’s moral teaching, which holds that one can never deliberately choose to do an evil act. In the current debate of Christian moral principles, McNeill’s position has been generally discounted, while the “proportionalists” are still with us.

In the course of my research for this paper I encountered two separate scientific sources that add support to the position that the bonding found in the homosexual couple is radically different from a conjugal relationship of marriage.

In her paper, “And the Two Become One: The Body Expresses the Person Through The Biochemistry of Unity and Indissolubility,” Diane S. Dewane reports on research that investigates hormone release in mating animals and human beings. [24] She proposes convincingly that “the physiology of the human person may actually be ordered [her word] to unity and indissolubility,” that is, to the strengthening of the conjugal bond. Two chemicals released during the voles’ mating, oxytocin and vasopressin, seem to trigger a response that “permanently alters body chemistry.” This response seems to increase the bond between the two, and they experience great distress if this bond is later disrupted. Study of the brain receptors that react to these neurotransmitters shows a greater number in the subspecies of vole that is monogamous, and less in the type that is not. Studies in human subjects, who have brain receptors similar to the monogamous subspecies of vole, have been interesting. In humans, both male and female, there is a rush of this “bonding” oxytocin during the climax of sexual intercourse. The same hormone has been found to be released in smaller quantities when stimulated by gentle caressing and cuddling. Dewane observes that these “effects in women have long been noted through human experience, as well.” The other hormone, vasopressin, is released in males after intercourse, and seems to influence bonding as well. One of its effects is selective aggression toward rival males and increasing partner bonding with the female. “This chemical plays an important role in prompting desire for the male to stay with his partner rather than roaming to find another,” a factor that would have positive influence “toward the maintenance of marriage and family.” [25] Dewane concludes that the influence of these neuropeptides would seem to reinforce “love circuitry” in the brain, and intimate bonding and fidelity.

Dewane documents research that shows that “pre-marital sex and co-habitation” (in other words, sex outside of a committed bond) are behaviors that produce negative long-term feelings and psychological responses. [27]

In additional to the hard science of neuroscience and hormone chemistry some trends in the field of psychology are worthy of note. Much of the groundbreaking literature in the field of same-sex attraction documents a pattern in those with same-sex attraction. Many of these individuals have a difficulty—or even an inability—in relating comfortably with peers of the same sex. Psychologist Gerard J. M van den Aardweg’s study into the origins homosexuality has led him to believe that same-sex attraction is coupled with feelings of inferiority that emerge in pre-pubescent or pubescent individuals. These youngsters struggle with feeling inferior to persons of their own sex whom they idealize and admire out of their own feelings of inferiority. Due to this ever-present feeling of inadequacy, a “normal” social relationship with their same-sex peers is difficult or impossible. They experience themselves as “detached” from their same-sex peers. Yet there is a deep desire to contact these persons and have friendships with them. With the onset of puberty this desire becomes eroticized, and these feelings persist into the adult years. By then, the person’s craving for union with the same-sex is not so much out of feeling inferior as it is an attempt to possess the compionship he feels he lacks. This mark remains in the character of the homosexual person unless he is assisted to heal the deficiency.[28]

In her book, Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic, Elizabeth Moberly raises a similar point. She believes that “same sex ambivalence,” results from a “detachment” from the same sex. “The homosexual’s primary and central defensive barrier, and difficulty toward relating, is toward the same sex, and not toward the opposite sex.” [29] The fact that this is the quest to resume and complete the identificatory process is particularly apparent when virile partners are sought for the sake of obtaining a ‘shot’ of masculinity through identification with the partner.” [30] Moberly believes that healing may be achieved by same-sex companionship that is not sexual: “The psychological needs of the homosexual are often expressed sexually, but these needs exist independently of sexual expression. A good non-sexual relationship with a member of the same sex is another means of fulfilling such needs. This overall structure of same-sex ambivalence is the homosexual condition. [31]

Moberly believes that the problems that cause homosexual attraction are not resolved by an attempt at heterosexual marriage. In fact, they militate against a successful marriage until they are confronted and healed.

When considering the difficulties associated with same sex attraction and behavior the physical risks involved must be included. In “The Medical Abnormality of Homosexuality,” Michael B. Flanagan, M.D., has assembled medical facts from more than sixty studies whose results have been reported in prestigious peer-review journals. [33] Five sections of this article treat “high-risk behaviors,” their symptoms and their consequences. The sixth and final section summarizes the literature concerning the causes of same-sex attraction and an array of opinions about the possibility of “orientation change.” A summary of Dr. Flanagan’s chief concerns regarding medical complications is found in the Appendix. Dr. Flanagan’s medical judgment, supported by the results of these many studies, is that homosexual activity involves behaviors that are dangerous and involve serious risks to health. Homosexual activity, whether pursued with many partners or only one, will have negative effects. The “gay lifestyle” is not a healthy lifestyle.

Although we have touched on several important points involved in the psychology and biology associated with the problem of same-sex attraction, this treatment is far from comprehensive. However, given the scope of this paper, we have seen a profile emerge in the various studies indicating that homosexual activity is neither psychologically nor physically healthy. Restricting one’s genital activity to one partner does not seem to address the deeper psychological issues that are present. Homosexual activity, whether pursued with many partners or a single partner, will have harmful effects.

We now move to the final section of the paper which will consider the problems of same-sex attraction in light of Pope John Paul’s Theology of the Body. We will review three key points of the Holy Father’s teaching on the body that are relevant for a discussion of same-sex attraction and same-sex acts. The three themes from the first cycle of the Theology of the Body addresses are Original Solitude, Original Unity, and Nuptiality of the Body. We will first summarize each of these teachings and then apply them to the topic of same-sex attraction.

The principal characteristics of Original Solitude are that Adam, “the man,” experienced himself as a subject—a person—with individuality and consciousness. In experiencing himself as a subject in original solitude he realizes that he stands in relationship with God. He is “a partner with the Absolute.” Man is in an open relationship with the Creator. His life is given to him by God, and is not earned or deserved; it is a gift. He is contingent and dependant upon God, and in a personal relationship with God.

The man experiences himself in the company of the other creatures. God presents the plants and animals to the man as a gift. The man gives names to the creature, indicating his realization that he is has dominion over them. He also experiences himself in relation to non-living creation, since he is the one with the power to “till the soil.” Commanded by God to do this, the man exercises dominion over that part of creation which is also a gift. Creation is good. Sub-human creation is a gift to man, and man is a gift to creation.

Despite all of these gifts, man experiences a “lack” in his Original Solitude. He is different from the rest of creation, and nothing he has is a suitable companion for him. His relationship to God is an “I-Thou” relationship because it involves a person-to-person relationship. But his relationship to the rest of the created order is an “I-it” relationship. God has compassion on the man, and creates from him the woman. When he sees her the man recognizes that she is “bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh” (Genesis 2:27. He realizes that she, like him, is a person. There are two ways of being a person made in the image of God: masculinity and femininity “complete each other.” They are two complimentary dimensions of self-consciousness and self-determination, two ways of being conscious of the meaning of the body. Her femininity helps him identify and experience his masculinity, and his masculine presence helps her to understand her femininity. The man’s original solitude, thanks to God’s gift of woman, opens the way to original unity.

Once the woman has been created from the man as another subject and a suitable partner for him, they realize that they are not only “the same stuff,” but that they are made for each other in their asymmetrical difference. It is important that each of these individuals is a “never-to-be-repeated subject, who cannot be absorbed or annihilated by union with the other. In God’s free gift of their subjectivity they remain subjects, while their dual-unity results from their ability to be a gift to and for each other. This paradox of unity-in-duality is what makes the datum and the donum one single reality. We see the meaning of the body. This dual-union of the spouses is an icon—an image and reflection—of the interior life of the Blessed Trinity. The dual-union of the man and the woman is open to fruitfulness, and can result in “a third” through the mystery and gift of procreation.

Responding to this mystery the pope teaches that man is in “the image of God” not so much in solitude, as in communion. The communio personarum of the man and woman is an incarnate reflection of the disinterested self-giving in the Triune God who created them. The unity that exists in their difference is much deeper than the “complementarity” of two individuals who find each other compatible. Theirs is a unity in difference that is asymmetrical. Their unity is constituted by their loving communion, expressed in their acts of mutual self-donation.

The man and woman see in the physical reality of their bodies that they are “made for each other.” As body-persons they experience their bodies as “fit for unity” and “fit for communicating love.” Man realizes that he can initiate a loving gift of himself, and that the woman is receptive to, and apt for, this donation of himself to her. In the same way, woman realizes that she can receive the gift of the man by responding to his initiative, and then complete the gift in a return bestowal of her gift-of-self to the man. The male and female body are apt for showing, giving and receiving love.

The conjugal act, as expressive of the communion of persons, is to be found in the unity of man and woman. Freely chosen, freely and mutual self-donating, and open to the generation of children, the conjugal act is the normative expression of the one-flesh union. It is the “normative” understanding for the act because it expresses the interior meaning and ontological reality of the act itself. The “ethical” understanding of the appropriate use of the sexual power is not something external to the act, and imposed from the “outside,” either by God or by some religious or civil human authority. Because the nuptial meaning of the body is constitutive of the meaning of the body and sex “right from the beginning,” it is normative for any person’s use of his or her sexual power. Since it is universally normative any use of the sexual faculty outside of the context of the conjugal act is disordered. Any sexual union outside of a free, mutual, exclusive, indissoluble relationship of a man and a woman (marriage) and open to the transmission of life (open to fertility) would be flawed from its roots. The conjugal act is expressive of a truly existing married relationship, and that kind of a relationship is expressed physically in the conjugal act.

In his reflections on the Song of Songs, the Holy Father speaks of the presence of eros and agape in the conjugal relationship:

Fruitfulness is central to the pope’s teaching on nuptiality and conjugal act. In a fallen world, where the human heart becomes a battlefield between love and lust, a person can become insensitive to the gift of the other person. The conjugal act expresses appreciation of the gift, for it expresses self-donation in a way that of its nature is open to a third, that is, fertile and open to the great gift of new life. Openness to life and rejection of lust is the key to man’s discovery of himself as “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake” and the one who “can fully discover his true self only in a sincere giving of himself.” [35] The mutual self-donation of the asymmetrical two in the conjugal act, open to the fruitful gift of love that procreates a third, is a reflection of the Trinity. This is where man and woman recognize that they are imago Dei.

In his treatment of Ephesians 5 the Holy Father explores the nuptial unity of Christ and his Church and draws out implications of this teaching for the mystery of Christian marriage. Mary Shivanandan summarizes John Paul’s thought on this passage:

This is where husband and wife realize that they are the image of the love of Christ and his Bride, the Church.

It is clear that the pattern we see in John Paul II’s theology of the body is a direct challenge to the notion that two persons of the same sex are able to form a union that is a viable alternative to the conjugal union of man and woman. Homosexual attraction and homosexual acts are contrary to the “truth about man.” Created in original solitude, “the man” experienced the lack of a suitable companion. God created Eve from man’s substance so that the two experience both the original unity in their masculinity and femininity and a “double solitude” from the rest of creation. This forms the interior constitution of the only creature that is in the image and likeness of God. The asymmetry of man and woman is an essential part of the relational aspect of their unity-in-difference, and of the way they image the communio personarum that is the Triune God.

John Paul reflects on passages from the Song of Songs to illustrate the beautiful dynamic that is present in the language of the body in masculinity and femininity. [37] When the man first sees the woman, and she first sees him, there is a fascination in the eros that is ordered to bring about agape. [38] This fascination, experienced in their nakedness, is crucial for our topic. The man and the woman instantly and clearly see that they are “for one another.” The awareness that their bodies are “apt for physical unity” because of the difference in their sex, makes them appreciate the nuptiality of their bodies and allows them to see that a full and complete donation of self to the other is an activity that creates a community of persons that reflect the interior life of the Trinity. This is part of their original experience of their relationship with God and each other.

When the man sees the woman he sees a body-person that is quite different from his own body and whose body is apt for communicating love. Her body invites man’s self-donation with the possibility of reciprocal giving and receiving through a conjugal act. And this conjugal act is one which of its nature carries with it openness to new life and the possibility of procreation. For the man this act of self-giving is only possible if the beloved is other—a woman. And for the woman, this act is only possible if the beloved is a man.

Consider this dynamic if the situation is male seeing male or female seeing female. If man sees man, what he sees is another who has the same kind of body as his. Attraction to that body will be limited to the erotic alone, because the spiritual merging that is constitutive of the conjugal act is impossible in a “symmetrical” situation. Even more devastating is the fact that the man would feel sexual attraction for the same kind of body that he has. He, therefore, could be tempted to lust not only for the body of another, but to lust for his own body. One’s own body becomes the object of the kind of body one is attracted to. This has all the potential of corrupting what God intended to be an attraction toward an act that expresses a disinterested gift to another, into a narcissistic doting upon the self. [39] Same-sex attraction involves desire for same-sex acts which do not lend themselves to self-donation and are sterile. These acts cannot be conjugal acts.

The Pauline analogy of the union of Christ and his Church and Christian marriage, as found in the letter to the Ephesians, is also used by the pope to develop his theology of Christian marriage and is significant for our topic. Marital love is characterized by fruitful, conjugal self-donation and laying down one’s life for the other, as Christ did for his Church. This type of love is not parental love, or brother-sister love, or compassionate friendship: it is sacramental spousal love. It is nuptial love. The union of Christ and his bride, and the Christian husband and bride, are both “great mysteries.” [40]

Some people object that Church teaching about homosexuality is negative and moralistic. Even when one speaks the truth in compassion the message is experienced as imposing and limiting. At times the messenger is accused of being intolerant, “homophobic,” and hateful.

In John Paul’s theology of the body we have an invaluable resource for work with homosexual persons. This theology illustrates as never before why the conjugal union of husband and wife is a sacred union given by God, and calls married and unmarried people to authentic, self-sacrificing unity, fidelity, and chastity. If we in the Church can communicate these truths to our brothers and sisters who struggle with the problem of same-sex attraction, we may be able to help them find healing and spiritual strength. We will also be able to give them a rationale for making a gift of their chastity to God. The body speaks the truth about man. The body expresses the person.

Summary of some medical dangers and problems associated with homosexual activity as reported in “The Medical Abnormality of Homosexuality,” by Michael B. Flanagan, M.D., in Linacre Quarterly, August 2003, 233-243. Dr. Flanagan’s conclusions are based on over sixty studies. A list of documented sources follows each of the paper’s six sections.

Semen antibodies. Placing semen into the rectum and lower bowel causes the body to produce antibodies to the semen. The semen itself carries immunosuppressive agents, which inhibit lymphocytes from attacking it in the vagina, so that it may arrive safely in the fallopian tube for fertilization. “The vagina, being a reproductive organ which must allow passage of the full-term infant, is a thick walled muscular tube lined by twenty to twenty-five layers of skin cells. The blood vessels are comparatively far beneath the surface. The wall of the vagina is a barrier to the bloodstream. These same antibodies, when placed in the bowel, attack the immune system. The wall of the rectum, which is designed for the elimination of waste, is thin and lined by one layer of epithelium, allowing access to the bloodstream for semen through the numerous and easily damaged blood vessels which are just beneath the thin surface layer. Anal copulation causes tears in the wall, allowing semen to enter the bloodstream. Anti-sperm antibodies have been found in the blood of partners of homosexuals who engaged in intercourse. The attack on the receptor’s immune system decreases the body’s ability to fight off infections, including HIV/AIDS, and some forms of cancer”. “It clearly demonstrates the abnormality of anal copulation, the mode of sexual union of MSM’s (men who have sex with men), and therefore the abnormality of homosexual marriage. Human beings are not meant to have semen in their blood. It should be stressed that this is a condition due to anal intercourse, which can cause that whole array of immunosuppressive diseases and sexually transmitted diseases and infections not usually sexually transmitted”. [Pp. 233-234]
Sexually Transmitted Diseases in Men Who Have Sex with Men. Gonorrhea, syphilis, chlamydia, and two common important virus infections, genital herpes and human papilloma virus. MSM immune system compromised by sperm antibodies lessens the body’s ability to fight-off these intruders. Lymphoma occurs with Herpes B and C. MSM have a higher rate HIV/AIDS. MSM have a higher death rate from liver problems. There is no vaccine for Hepatitis C, which is also more common in MSM. [Pp. 234-235]
Gay Bowel Syndrome. Genital/oral/anal contact allows contamination from one area to another in a body system that is designed to keep these three areas isolated from one another. The result is that microbes and viruses from one area are transferred to another area of the body that is ill-equipped to defend against them. [Pp. 236-239]
HIV/AIDS Epidemic. Contrary to the public relations that “AIDS is everybody’s disease,” it is definitely a disease that attacks a greater proportion of homosexual men who are sexually active than it does sexually active heterosexual people in the general population. [Pp. 239-242]

Dewane, D. “And the Two Become One: The Body Expresses the Person Through the Biochemistry of Unity and Indissolubility” on the website of Dr. Mary Shivanandan, http//www.christendom-awake.org/pages/mshivana/tobpaper.htm (Accessed November 11, 2003).

DeMarco, D. “The Vatican and Same-Sex Unions,” Ethics and Medics, 28, 11 2003.

Flanagan, M. “The Medical Abnormality of Homosexuality,” Linacre Quarterly,

Grenda, D. “Is God ‘Homophobic?’” Linacre Quarterly, August 2003, 261-264.

Harvey, J. “Recognizing and Treating Same-Sex Attractions in Children.” Interview with Fr. Harvey on ZENIT, 11/16/2003, ZE03111620

Helminiak, D. “FAQs: Catholicism, Homosexuality, and Dignity: Frequently Asked Questions About Being Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender and Catholic,” on Dignity USA website http://www.dignityusa.org/faq.html (Accessed August 8, 2003).

John Paul II Christifideles Laici (“The Lay Members of Christ’s Faithful”).

Dives in Misericordia (“The Mercy of God”). Boston: Pauline Books and Media, 1980

Familiaris Consortio (“The Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World”). Boston: Pauline Books and Media, 1981.

Mulieris Dignitatem (“The Dignity and Vocation of Women”). Boston: Pauline Books and Media, 1988.

Redemptor Hominis (“The Redeemer of Man”) Boston: Pauline Books and Media, 1997.

Introduction to Moral Theology, Revised edition. Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor Publications, 1994.

Sex and the Sanctity of Human Life. Front Royal, VA: Christendom College Press, 1984.

Moberly, E. Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic. Cambridge: James Clark, 1983

Prendergast, T. “Archbishop Prendergast on Canada’s Push for Same-Sex Unions.” Interview on ZENIT, October 3, 2003. ZE03100927 (Accessed October 6, 2003).

Rousseau, M. “Deriving Bioethical Norms from the Theology of the Body,” National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Vol. 3, no. 1, 59-67.

Shivanandan, M. Crossing the Threshold of Love: A New Vision of Marriage in the Light of John Paul II’s Anthropology. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1999.

_______ The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second edition. U.S. Catholic Conference, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2000.

_______ “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons.” Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Boston: Pauline Books and Media, 2003.

_______ “Homosexuality and Hope,” Statement of the Catholic Medical Association, November 2000, on NARTH website, http://www.narth.com/docs/hope. html. (Accessed November 7, 2003).

_______ “Letter on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons,” and “Non-Discrimination Against Homosexual Persons,” Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Boston: Pauline Books and Media, 1998.

1. Catechism of the Catholic Church, Revised Edition (U.S. Catholic Conference—Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2000), 2357. (hereafter cited as CCC).

2. This is the position of Dignity USA. On their website the organization identifies itself as “Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Transgender Catholics.” http://www.dignityusa.org.

6. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Letter on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons,” (Boston: Pauline Books and Media, 1998), #3, 3.

7. William E. May, “On the Impossibility of Same-Sex Marriage: A Review of Catholic Teaching,” National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 4.2 (Summer, 2004) 303-316. [please note that this was an unpublished paper at the time that Fr. Knapp's paper was written.] Dr. May observes that the language of objective disorder “elicited very strong opposition and charges of homophobia. For example, see the “response” and “non-acceptance” of the letter by Dignity USA, on their website, http://dignityusa.org.

8. John Finnis, “An Intrinsically Disordered Act,” in Harvey and Bradley, Eds., Same Sex Attraction: A Parents’ Guide (South Bend, IN: St. Augustine, 2003), 89-99

9. When Jesus was asked about marriage and divorce, he returns to the original plan of God “in the beginning” by citing this passage from Genesis. In proclaiming the Good News he calls human persons back to this original relationship intended by the Creator.

13. Kevin Miller, “Scripture and Homosexuality,” in Harvey and Bradley, Eds., Same Sex Attraction: A Parents’ Guide (South Bend, IN: St. Augustine, 2003), 71

15. St. Thomas Aquinas, The Summa Theologica, Second and Revised Edition, 1929, Literally translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. II, II, Q.154, Art.18. Online edition on New Advent: http//newadvent.org/summa/315412.htm (Emphasis added)

16. John Finnis, “An Intrinsically Disordered Inclination,” in Harvey and Bradley (Eds.), Same Sex Attraction: A Parents’ Guide, 95-96.

17. For this reason I would argue against the use of the term “homosexual intercourse.” Sexual intercourse refers to the type of act that can be a conjugal act that is open to fertility and open to new life. Homosexual acts can never be conjugal, fertile, and open to procreation. I favor using “homosexual sex” or “homosexual acts.” The act of sexual intercourse is only possible between a man and a woman.

18. William E. May, citing Walter Wadlington, observes that the term “donor” is a misnomer, since today most persons who supply semen are compensated. See William May, Catholic Bioethics and the Gift of Human Life (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing, 2000), 74

19. Benedict Ashley, O.P., “The Theology of Hetero- and Homosexuality,” in Harvey and Bradley, Eds., Same Sex Attraction: A Parents’ Guide, 81

20. John Paul II disagrees with the proportionalist approach to “ideals.” In Veritatis Splendor (Boston: St. Paul Books and Media, 1993), No. 113, the Holy Father teaches: “It would be a very serious error to conclude…that the Church’s teaching is essentially only an ‘ideal’ which must then be adapted, proportioned, graduated to the so-called concrete possibilities of man, according to a ‘balancing of the goods in question.’”

21. Fr. Harvey is a priest and a psychologist, and one of the founders of Courage, a Catholic ministry to homosexuals.

22. John Harvey, The Homosexual Person (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987), 89-90. MeNeill does hold that there could be no good intention for promiscuous behavior.

24. Diane S. Dewane, “And the Two Become One: The Body Expresses the Person Through The Biochemistry of Unity & Indissolubility,” at http://christendom-awake.org/pages/mshivana/tobpaper.htm

The research reported by Dewane studied hormonal changes in mating prairie voles. The prairie vole is a small mouse-like animal that has a hormonal chemistry very similar to that of humans.

28. Gerard J. M. van den Aardweg, The Battle for Normality (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1997), 47-50. In light of what appears to be characteristic of the psychological makeup of the same-sex attracted personality, Dewane’s research considered earlier gains more significance. Perhaps the tendency toward promiscuity in homosexual behavior is rooted in the psychological inadequacies experienced by the person which are compounded or reinforced by the neurological patterning that comes from engaging in sexual activity with more than one person. Further research in this area may yield a better understanding of the dynamics of these problems. See also the research report of the Catholic Medical Association “Homosexuality and Hope,” at http://www.cathmed.org.

33. Michael Flanagan, M.S., “The Medical Abnormality of Homosexuality” in Linacre Quarterly, August 2003, 233ff.

35. Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes (“The Church in the Modern World”), #24 in The Documents of Vatican II, ed. Walter Abbott (New York: America Press, 1966), 200-201.

36. Mary Shivanandan, Crossing the Threshold of Love (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1999), 132. The author comments on John Paul’s analysis of the analogy of Christ-Church relationship and marriage in the papal audience of September 29, 1982.

38. Commenting on the Song of Songs, John Paul observes: “The words of love uttered by both of them as therefore concentrated on the body, not only because in itself it constitutes the source of the mutual fascination. But it is also, and above all, because on the body there lingers directly and immediately toward the other person, toward the other “I”—female or male—which the interior impulse of the heart generates love.” TB, 368.

39. Perhaps this narcissistic turning inward is related to the problems documented in the writings of Gerard J. M. van den Aardweg and Elizabeth Moberly mentioned above, including an inability to relate comfortably to peers, feelings of detachment, inadequacy, attraction to very virile men, etc.

40. A related topic is the nature of the love of consecrated religious and celibate priests. A treatment of these topics is beyond the scope of this paper. The way that these men and women love Christ and his Church is both a self-donating offering to God and an eschatological witness. Their charismatic gifts of celibacy and consecration express the nuptiality of their bodies in a way that is a sacrificial expression of love, yet different from that love and sacrifice found in Christian marriage.

Pope John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body”

Implications for understanding same-sex attraction and same-sex acts

JPI 840