Moralia

In a June 29, 2008, piece in the Opinion section of the Santa Fe New Mexican, Michael J. Chávez wrote of how gratified he was to see so many churches represented at the Gay Pride parade in Albuquerque earlier this month. He saw this is a positive step, but only a beginning toward his ultimate goal of having all Christian churches completely de-stigmatize homosexuality, to recognize that “intimate relations between a God-centered, same sex couple is not immoral” and “that we [homosexuals] are not an abomination in the eyes of God.”

Chávez discusses his painful experience as a homosexual Catholic who experienced “years of emotional turmoil, anxiety and loneliness” because he understood Catholic doctrine as condemning his sexual orientation. He does not say in the article whether he left the Church, but the implication is that he did, since he has transcended what he considers the limited, judgmental view of the Church and embraced a more enlightened doctrine.

The Christian churches Chávez praises for welcoming gays have become so enlightened as a result of “recognizing and adopting critical and extensive biblical research and study of ancient attitudes, customs, societal mores, traditions and pagan worship practices. Through this exegesis the greater understanding today is that intimate relations between a God-centered, same sex couple is not immoral.” This new and improved Biblical exegesis explains “that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is not about homosexuality, but about humankind’s inhumanity. That St. Paul’s prohibitions in the Bible are not aimed against God-centered, same-sex relationships, but against idolatry and paganism.”

I feel compassion for the pain and crisis of faith Mr. Chávez experienced. I recognize that both his sexual orientation and his theology are his own business, not mine. He is free to alleviate his pain and resolve his spiritual crisis by lying to himself about what the Bible says, but when he publishes those lies in our local newspaper, then those lies become my business. How studying pagan worship practices can lead us to conclude that Paul’s characterization of male-male sexuality as unnatural and indecent (Romans 1:26-27) does not really mean what it so obviously says is beyond me. The claim that the Pauline proscription is “not aimed against God-centered, same-sex relationships” presupposes that at least some homosexual relationships are considered God-centered by at least some Biblical authors. I defy Mr. Chávez or any other practitioner of “enlightened exegesis” to find a passage in the Bible where certain homosexual relationships (but apparently not others) are characterized as God-centered.

Like so many homosexual Christians who are unwilling to renounce either their homosexuality or their Christianity, but suffer from the psychic pain of engaging in a practice their faith condemns, Mr. Chávez chose to resolve his pain by redefining for himself what the Bible says. If they can simply get rid of the conflict with tortuous exercises in “enlightened exegesis” then they can convince themselves that they can have their cake and eat it too – which we less enlightened exegetes know is impossible, short of a loaves and fishes kind of miracle.