Deutsch

Nederlands

English

Italiano

Polska

Español

Academic Declaration on the Ethics of Same-Sex Relationships

Introduction

This Declaration is based on international research, coordinated by the Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research, which incorporates the latest independent scholarly contributions on the morality of non-heterosexual relationships. The paragraph numbers in italics in square brackets refer to the relevant section of the research report, which provides the evidence backing the statement, e.g. [RR§2]. A Foreword to the Statement is available here.

Luca Badini Confalonieri

Summary Statement

§1.1. Some persons are non-heterosexual in orientation.

Sexual orientation is one’s degree of sexual attraction to the same sex, both sexes, or the other sex. It is reflected in physiological sexual arousal patterns to male vs. female erotic stimuli. In turn, sexual attraction motivates sexual behavior and sexual identity. No evidence exists to suggest that individuals can consciously alter their genital arousal patterns to change their sexual orientation or identity.

Sexual orientation is largely determined by the time of birth, by factors which are genetic and hormonal rather than social. In a significant minority of cases, such an orientation is non-heterosexual. A non-heterosexual orientation is a “natural variation within the range of human sexuality”.

Because sexual orientation is determined by the time of birth through genetic and hormonal factors, it is not the result of a free choice. Non-heterosexual people are no more responsible for their sexual orientation than heterosexual people are for theirs.

§1.2. Current papal teaching condemns same-sex orientation as “intrinsically disordered”, and same-sex relationships as always “intrinsically evil”.

Rome provides two types of arguments for this teaching.

§1.3. Biological argument. Same-sex acts are an “intrinsic moral evil” (HP§7) because incapable of biological procreation, regarded as an “an essential and indispensable finality” of every act of sexual intercourse (Persona Humana §8, also Homosexualitatis Problema §7, Humanae Vitae §3, Catechism of the Catholic Church §2357).

However, the natural sciences show that the vast majority of acts of heterosexual intercourse do not have the biological capacity for procreation, and therefore they cannot have procreation as their “finality.” In this, non-heterosexual “acts” are not different from the vast majority of heterosexual “acts”: both are biologically incapable of procreation.

Moreover, current papal teaching regards married heterosexual intercourse as ethically legitimate even when there is no possibility of procreation (Humanae Vitae §11). Likewise, Catholic theology and Canon Law maintain that the capacity for biological procreation is not even necessary to the existence of marriage itself: “Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage” (Codex Iuris Canonici §1084.3).

This is because both individual sexual acts, and marriage in general, can fulfill other morally worthy ends different from procreation. Non-heterosexual acts and relationships too can fulfill the same non-conceptive morally worthy ends. It is therefore incorrect to condemn them as “intrinsically evil” for being incapable of biological procreation.

§1.4. Biblical argument. Papal documents contend that the Bible condemns homosexual relationships in Leviticus 18:20 and parallel 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; and 1 Timothy 1:10.

However, no biblical author was aware of the existence or possibility of genetic, consensual, egalitarian, stable, and life-long LGB relationships. Consequently, no biblical passage mentioning same-sex behavior has those kind of relationships as its object.

Moreover, the Bible emphasizes that human sexuality is first and foremost for companionship and mutual help (Genesis 2:18, 24).

§1.5. Conclusion. There are no scientific or biblical grounds to justify a different ethical evaluation, in principle, of non-heterosexual relationships in comparison to heterosexual ones. The criteria for determining the morality of same-sex relationships should be the same as those used for determining the morality of heterosexual relationships, including their institutional, life-long expression, namely marriage. If sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies heterosexual marriage, the same must apply to same-sex marriage.

Assessment of the Principal Papal Arguments

A fully referenced discussion of these arguments can be found in the online Report.

§2. The “Natural Law” Argument: Same-sex Relationships Are Immoral because they are Infertile [RR§2]

§2.1. Papal teaching maintains that same-sex relationships are incapable of biological procreation, regarded as a “natural,” essential finality of every act of sexual intercourse. “Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life…” (Humana Persona §7), and so homosexual unions “are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race” (Catechism of the Catholic Church §2357).

This is based on the belief that the biological “laws of conception” show that each and every act of sexual intercourse has procreation as its natural “finality” and “significance.” From such a belief, the moral requirement is inferred that couples engaging in sexual intercourse must always be open to procreation.

This argument contains the following errors.

§3. Errors contained in the “Natural Law” Argument

§3.1. No act of sexual intercourse has an independent biological “capacity” for procreation, and so it cannot be said to always have procreation as its finality [RR§4.1].

The causal relationship between insemination and, on the other hand, fertilization, implantation, and ultimately procreation, is not necessary, but statistical. If it were not so, every act of insemination would result in a conception.

Consequently, the biological “capacity” for procreation of any given act of heterosexual intercourse is relative, i.e. dependent on the statistical fulfilment of numerous conditions. No act of heterosexual intercourse has an independent biological “capacity” for procreation, and so it cannot be said to always have procreation as its “finality.”

In practice, this means that the vast majority of acts of heterosexual intercourse have neither a biological capacity nor a finality for procreation and, in that respect, they are identical to non-heterosexual “acts.”

§3.2. The Papal argument contradicts the biblical view about the multiple purposes of human sexuality [RR§4.6].

The Old Testament affirms that the raisons d’être of human sexuality comprise companionship, mutual help (Genesis 2:18, 24), and physical pleasure (Song of Songs 5:1; Proverbs 5:18-19).

Significantly, procreation is not included in the foundational passage of Genesis 2:18-24. In Genesis 1:28, where it is mentioned, it is described as a blessing rather than a command. Likewise, nowhere in the New Testament is the capacity to, or intention of, procreate mandated as an essential requirement for marriage.

Therefore, the papal axioms that “openness to procreation” is an essential requirement of each and every act of sexual intercourse does not conform to the biblical teaching.

In summary, the Bible endorses as morally worthy purposes of sexual intercourse other than procreation. Consensual LGB relationship can fulfil those morally worthy purposes of human sexuality.

§3.3. Other scientific disciplines confirm that human sexuality has important purposes different from procreation [RR§4.3-4.4].

That human sexuality includes non-conceptive purposes and goals independent from procreation and aimed instead at strengthening pair-bonding is confirmed by the evolutionary biology of human reproduction, and sociology, among other disciplines.

§3.4. Contradiction with mainstream Catholic theology, Canon Law, and papal teaching itself, which do not regard infertility as an obstacle to marriage [RR§4.5].

In agreement with the biblical evidence, both mainstream Catholic theology and Canon Law maintain that the capacity for biological procreation is not necessary to the existence of marriage itself: “Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage” (Codex Iuris Canonici §1084.3).

Similarly, already in 1968 papal teaching with regard to fertile (married) heterosexual couples affirmed that “Sexual activity […] does not […] cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile” (Humanae Vitae §11).

In a 2016 document summarizing the conclusions of the international synod of bishops, papal teaching also condemned the presentation of marriage “in such a way that its unitive meaning, its call to grow in love and its ideal of mutual assistance are overshadowed by an almost exclusive insistence on the duty of procreation” (Amoris Laetitia §36).

It further observed that “procreation” and “motherhood” are not solely “biological realities” (Amoris Laetitia §178), and they “are not the only ways of experiencing the fruitfulness of love”: such fruitfulness can also be expressed through adoption, or simply by contributing to society (Amoris Laetitia §181). Same-sex and heterosexual relationships are equally capable of that kind of fruitfulness.

§3.5. Unfounded Assumptions on the Consequences of Same-sex Unions on the partners, children, and society.

Papal teaching also contends same-sex unions are “harmful” to the partners themselves, to the “normal development of children” involved, and to the “proper development of human society” in general (Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons §§7-8). Such contentions are not supported by the sociological evidence currently available.

§3.6. Conclusion.

What we know from the human sciences about the multiple dimensions of meaning of human sexuality contradicts the Vatican’s outright condemnation of all same-sex acts. The fact that same-sex relationships are “are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race” (Catechism of the Catholic Church §2357) does not make them intrinsically immoral. Both heterosexual and non-heterosexual relationships are capable of being life-giving and fruitful for the people involved and for society at large.

§4. Errors contained in the Vatican’s interpretation of biblical passages regarding homosexuality

§4.1. The second papal argument for prohibiting homosexual relationships is that they are supposedly condemned in select biblical passages. These are: Leviticus 18:20 and parallel 20:13; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:10; and Romans 1:26-27.

§4.2. In the world inhabited by Old Testament and New Testament authors, male homosexual behavior in antiquity was expressed through sexual relationships which, ordinarily, were temporary (i.e. outside long-term pair-bonding) and, due to imbalances of age, status, and power, were not free and consensual. In fact, male same-sex acts were ordinarily exploitative. Such a background must be considered when interpreting biblical passages on same-sex relationships [RR§5.1].

§4.3. Leviticus 18:20 and parallel 20:13. Recent research has established that these texts merely prohibit men from having intercourse with any married male [condemned as adulterous], or any unmarried male under the sexual guardianship of a Judean woman [condemned as incestuous]. Their traditional interpretation as condemning male homosexuality has been shown to be based on a mistranslation which is no longer tenable [RR§5.3].

§4.4. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; and 1 Timothy 1:10. These passages are part of two “vice lists” detailing the kind of sinners who will not enter heaven.

1 Cor. 6:9-10: Paul is borrowing a stock list of vices from available hortatory material. Among the sinners condemned, he mentions “male-bedders” and “softies” together. The purpose of the list is to illustrate Paul’s broader argument: that being Christian requires acting with justice (1 Cor. 6:7-8). “Male-bedders” and “softies” can only be regarded as acting unjustly if the reference is to the kind of male homosexual relationships most common in the Greco-Roman world of Paul’s time, which were exploitative [RR§5.4].

1 Timothy 1:10: In this vice list, the biblical author mentions “fornicators, male-bedders, slave-traders…”. The structure of the vice list may mirror the Decalogue, in which case fornicators and male-bedders are coupled together as representatives of adulterers, i.e. those acting against the sixth commandment. If correct, the reference confirms that male homosexual relationships were of necessity between unmarried people, and so outside heterosexual marriage, the only kind of marriage available at the time. The author is not referring here to stable, faithful, permanent male same-sex partnerships. Coupled with the absence of any mention of “softies”, and in view of the fact that the term immediately following it is “slave-traders” – notoriously involved in the sex trade – it indicates that the “male-bedders” in view here are the active partners in male homosexual intercourse who were ordinarily in heterosexual marriage (hence the likely reference to the seventh commandment against adultery) but who, because of their dominant social position, could and did have sexual intercourse with male slaves or prostitutes on a regular basis [RR§5.5].

§4.5. Romans 1:26-27. These verses form part of a larger section, Romans 1:18-2:11, in which Paul is building up an argument in support of his tenet that all have sinned, Gentiles as well as Jews. Recent research indicates verses 26-27 refer to a then well-known “dual-judgment” apocalyptic rhetorical topos. It consisted of two examples from Jewish sacred history of human fallenness and divine judgments.

• Verse 26 is likely a reference not to female homosexuality, but to the women who slept with angelic beings before the Flood (a literary tradition inspired by Genesis 6:1-4).
• Verse 27 is likely a reference to the specific homosexual behaviour of the men of ancient Sodom (a literary tradition inspired by Genesis 18:16-19:29).

To interpret Romans 1:27 as a universal condemnation of consensual, permanent male same-sex relationships is to read into the text something which it does not say. Such an interpretation would also be at odds with the tolerance of consensual homosexual behavior implicit in the lack of such a condemnation anywhere else in the Bible [RR§5.6-5.7].

§4.6. It is impossible to determine with absolute certainty whether the biblical author was referring to consensual or exploitative relationships in 1 Cor 6:9-10 and 1 Tim 1:9:10. The latter were by far the most widespread, and so the likelihood is that they are the object of the biblical author’s condemnation. However, it is impossible to establish it with absolute certainty. Likewise, Romans 1:26-27 is almost certainly a reference to a stock dual-judgment motif of apocalyptic rhetoric concerning the antediluvian women and Sodom’s men. The intertextual evidence is too much to be a coincidence, but again, it is impossible to “prove” that with absolute certainty.

In all three cases, the alternative interpretation, namely that Paul is offering a normative condemnation of non-abusive consensual homosexual behavior, is much more unlikely, and in any case equally impossible to establish this with absolute certainty.

Such an exegetical uncertainty necessarily carries on to any ethical or theological inference that may be drawn from those texts. If there is no certainty as to what kind of male homosexual acts the biblical author was referring to – whether consensual or abusive – it is likewise impossible to draw absolutely certain ethical norms from it: “Theological doctrines and ethical rules cannot be based on exegetical suppositions” [RR§5.8].

§4.7 Female homosexuality. Female homosexuality is never prohibited or condemned in the Old Testament or the New Testament. Especially significant is its absence from the code on sexual purity which list unlawful sexual behaviours of both men and women (Leviticus 18:1-30). In the New Testament, Romans 1:26 mentions “unnatural practices” of women, without further specification. As noted (§4.5), this is a likely reference to pre-Deluge women marrying angelic beings (Genesis 6:1-4).

§4.8. Conclusion. The Bible contains no prohibition or condemnation of consensual, egalitarian, faithful, and permanent LGB relationships.

Overall Conclusion

§5.1. There are no grounds, either from the sciences or from the Bible, to support current Catholic teaching according to which each and every act of sexual intercourse has a procreative significance and finality, and that consequently same-sex relationships are “intrinsically disordered” because lacking said procreative dimension of sexuality.

§5.2. The criteria for determining the morality of LGB relationships should be the same as those used for determining the morality of heterosexual relationships.

§5.3. LGB relationships can be as life-giving and blessed as their heterosexual counterpart. They can fulfill one or more of human sexuality’s non-conceptive meanings, including pleasure, love, comfort, celebration and companionship.

Recommendations

§6.1 Official Specialised Commission. In view of the consequences of Catholic teaching on LGBT people, the global reach of Catholic-run institutions, and that the topic has already been extensively researched, we recommend as a matter of urgency that the Catholic magisterium set up a new Commission, consisting of Christian theologians and experts in other relevant disciplines, to study the ethics of non-heterosexual relationships.

Regardless of the consultation process adopted, the opinions gathered should be independent, representative of the majority view of the pertinent academic communities, and made public.

In case of a lack of unanimity, the names and arguments of those who disagree with the majority opinion should also be made public.

The present report can be regarded as the initial step towards the work of such a Commission.

§6.2. Papal Decree. Should the evidence and arguments put forward in the Wijngaards Institute’s report be endorsed by the Commission, an official magisterial document should revoke the absolute condemnation of non-heterosexual relationships, and set out the criteria for their moral evaluation, pastoral accompaniment, and liturgical celebration.

§6.3. Bishops Conferences. As soon as possible after the publication of that official magisterial document, and conditional on its conclusions, national episcopal conferences should recommend that Catholic-run institutions stop any employment practice discriminating against LGBT people.

§6.4. Elimination of discriminatory practices. Acceptance of Humanae Vitae and Homosexualitatis Problema as a mark of orthodoxy should be removed from all selection procedures, including that of bishops and the teaching staff of Catholic academic institutions, and the admission of candidates to the priesthood.

§6.5. Restitution. Where possible, damage to the careers of Catholic scholars who have been censured for speaking out in defense of the morality of non-heterosexual relationships should be undone.

SIGNED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL WORKING PARTY