Caveat lector: The following is intended as a work of irony. The author is particularly anxious that readers not
impute to him any of the opinions expressed therein. While he agrees with some premises and conclusions advanced,
many, if not most, are far from consistent with his attitude or opinions. The author does, however, feel that what
follows is no more selective in its use of Scripture, casual in its logic, condescending in its attitude, erroneous in its
conclusions -- nor less guilty of asserting bare notions as if self-evident truths -- than countless similar essays
prepared by the committees, congregations, curiae, and theologians of numerous scattered members of Christ's
church.
Foreward
The church is faced today with a pastoral problem of some gravity. It is becoming more and more apparent that many
heterosexuals now consider themselves faithful members of the church, while committing acts very much at variance with the
church's solemn teaching. The problem is far from new; the Scriptural witness, and the unbroken tradition of the church attest
to the ongoing nature of this tragic discontinuity. The matter has only come to the attention of the church in recent years due to
the efforts by some heterosexuals to seek to justify their behavior.
Origins in Creation
The inability of heterosexuals to form lasting, stable relationships has long been noted. A survey of the biblical material
provides a sad witness to this inability, and one explanation for its source, in the judgment of God upon Adam and Eve. This
judgment provides a climax to the creation account in Genesis (3.16), and may therefore be taken as substantive testimony to
God's plan for humanity. This passage explains the tragic inability of heterosexuals to work together as equals: the female is
cursed with being placed under male rule, rather than coexisting as the full and equal partner that a healthy and life-giving
relationship requires. This order or hierarchy -- a veritable "civil war of the sexes" -- fosters an incapacity for mutuality that
renders stable heterosexual relationships nearly impossible.
The rest of the biblical material portrays the unfortunate consequence of this constitutional incapacity. Even the patriarch
Abraham, who in all other respects was a model of fidelity, was willing to deny his wife and turn her over as a potential
concubine. (Gen. 12.13) The overwhelming majority of heterosexual relationships portrayed in Scripture are devoid of any
appearance of human care, affection, mutuality, or concern. Few of the heterosexual relationships that do evince a degree of
personal commitment (e.g., Elkanah and Hannah) are monogamous. One is hard pressed to find even a handful of faithful,
loving, lifelong, monogamous, heterosexual relationships in the whole of Scripture.
We must remember, however, that God's power is perfected in weakness. The people of Israel fell away from the true path
time and again, yet were capable of repentance and redemption. So too, God will be patient with erring heterosexuals who
repent of their sinful behavior and return to God. This analogy between the corporate behavior of Israel and the personal
behavior of heterosexuals is linked throughout the Scripture: heterosexual adultery and prostitution are _types_ of idolatry on
Israel's part throughout the prophetic and poetic literature, so much so that at times it is difficult to determine if the acts under
condemnation are cultic or sexual in nature. Condemnation of heterosexual activity (real or figurative) is almost always paired
with a call to repentance, and an offer of divine forgiveness. A striking example of this in the New Testament appears in Jesus'
forgiveness of the woman taken in adultery. Christ forgives her, while making it clear he considers her behavior to be "sin."
(Note too, that this is one of the few times in the Gospel that Jesus directly and specifically designates any behavior by the title
of "sin.")
Disease and Other Consequences of Heterosexual Acts
It is incumbent upon the church to avoid suggesting that the high frequency of infant mortality, death in childbirth (which until
the introduction of antiseptic procedures was common worldwide), and sexually transmitted disease represent in some way
God's punishment of heterosexuals for their sinful behavior. All human beings share in common mortality, fall prey to disease
of one kind or another throughout their lives, and ultimately suffer death. All disease and death may therefore be seen as a
tragic consequence of Original Sin rather than of the particular sins of any given individual.
However, we would be negligent in our task were we to fail to note the biblical witness on this matter. Travail in childbirth is
singled out by God as a means to punish womankind for having led mankind astray (Gen. 3.16). This judgment is partially
deferred in the Deuteropauline literature, where it is promised that a woman believer will be "saved through childbirth." It is
important to note that the promise is not that a woman will be "saved _by means of_ childbirth" (which would be out of
keeping with the Pauline opposition to works righteousness), but "_brought safely through_ childbirth"; i.e., a woman's faith
will preserve her through this difficult trial, her faith serving as a balance to Eve's primal infidelity. (1 Tim. 2.12-15) It must also
be acknowledged that at least one instance of child mortality is explicitly related to heterosexual sin: the death the child born
out of the relationship between David and Uriah the Hittite's wife. (2 Sam 12.14)
Moreover, it would be irresponsible of the church not to warn heterosexuals of the dire medical consequences their behavior
might cause. When medical conditions (childbed fever, sexually transmitted disease, ectopic pregnancy, etc.) can so clearly
and directly be linked with a form of behavior the church is obliged to provide at least warning and counsel.
Relevance of Biblical Material
Many today would argue that the injunctions placed upon heterosexual contact in the Law of Moses are no longer relevant to
a discussion of heterosexuality. We must point out, however, the general ritual opprobrium attached to heterosexual acts. All
heterosexual acts render both parties unclean at any time, due to emission of semen (Lev 15.18), and abominable at other
times, due to contact with menstrual blood. (Lev 15.24, 20.18) The continued condemnation of the latter in the prophetic
literature (Ezek. 18.5-13; 22.10), and in early church tradition (e.g., the _Didascalia_, Jerome, Clement of Alexandria, John
Chrysostom, and Thomas Aquinas) warrants our caution in disregarding the Mosaic material as simply "cultural baggage."
Heterosexual Behavior vs. the Heterosexual Condition
Some argue that while heterosexual behavior is sinful, the heterosexual condition is not, and that a chaste heterosexual is
capable of leading a normal, full, and happy life within the moral framework determined by the church.
While this is to a large extent an accurate understanding, the church must also warn of the dangers of sin "thought but not
acted." Both the Old and New Testaments warn of the insidious and serious nature of such sin. The Tenth Commandment
(Exod 20.17) clearly places the mental act of coveting one's neighbor's wife in the same moral universe as outright adultery.
Jesus repeats and emphasizes this connection in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5.28). Given this Scriptural witness it is
difficult to see that heterosexual inclination is in any way less culpable than heterosexual action, unless involuntary and
immediately rejected by an exercise of the will and moral judgment. Such an understanding must rule as sinful, therefore, all
pornographic or semi-pornographic material so widely available in our society. (The latter includes much advertising that
appears, at first, to be completely unrelated to heterosexuality, but uses a heterosexual subtext in order to market a product.)
The church may be informed, if not guided, by the findings of science on this issue. However, the scientific community is not
yet in full agreement as to the etiology of heterosexuality, or the treatment of its more egregious manifestations. Despite the
intensity of the heterosexual inclination, the exercise of the will and moral judgment can assist all but the most clinically unstable
heterosexual from committing acts judged to be immoral by the church. However, there can be no question about the position
the church must take when dealing with unrepentant, avowed heterosexuals who not only commit such acts, but go so far as
to brag about the number of their sexual liaisons (many of them made through contacts in such sordid institutions as "singles
bars").
The Marriage of the Heterosexual
Given the statistics on infidelity, divorce, abortion, rape, and the abuse of spouses and children by heterosexuals, it would
appear that few heterosexual persons are capable of the fundamental, mutual self-giving required to support a lifelong,
committed relationship. The biblical material on this matter is again unambiguous. When Jesus told the disciples that the only
permissible exercise of heterosexual behavior was within the context of a lifelong, faithful, monogamous marriage, his disciples
exclaimed that it was impossible. Jesus went on to assert that while not impossible, it is a supernatural gift only a few could be
expected to accept. (Matt. 19.10-11)
The Pauline material does not forbid marriage, but certainly does not encourage it. Paul's preferential option is for abstinence.
Paul spent much of his ministry dealing with the weaknesses of heterosexuals in the early church, counseling them, if at all
possible, to avoid entering marriages he knew few of them would be able to sustain, yet allowing it for those unable to control
themselves. (1 Cor 7) At the same time, Paul warns against any heterosexual activity outside marriage. Clearly this creates a
pastoral dilemma for the church, and an opportunity to exercise forgiveness for those incapable -- through no fault other than
constitutional weakness -- of achieving the highest standards of Christian behavior.
The Ordination of the Heterosexual
The question of the ordination of active heterosexuals is not a new one. While it appears that some apostles were married
(Mark 1.30), Paul clearly regards the whole matter with unconcealed condescension. (1 Cor 9.5) The Deuteropauline
material relents slightly, and allows bishops to be married "only once." (1 Tim. 3.2) The catholic church, however, in its
wisdom, determined within the first few centuries of its institutional life that bishops (and in the West, all clergy) should
permanently abstain from all heterosexual activity. Since the Reformation, some churches have decided once again to permit
avowed, open and active heterosexuals to serve as ministers, sometimes with disastrous consequences, as the natural
tendency toward infidelity and instability evinced by so many heterosexuals emerges in socially and morally inappropriate
ways.
The Heterosexual Agenda
Even considering the church's call to forgiveness and understanding, it would be inappropriate for it to support the so- called
"heterosexual agenda" in the secular arena. The church was, to a certain extent, taken unawares when the greatest victory of
the heterosexual special interest group was achieved: the liberalization of divorce laws in most states. Similarly, heterosexuals
will be found at work mounting efforts to decriminalize those heterosexual acts still forbidden by statute in many states, to
lower the age of consent for sexual activity between persons of the opposite sex, and to legalize prostitution and the
distribution of pornography.
The church is not only competent to forgive the moral error involved in such acts, it is also able to appeal to the state for
mercy and some consideration of the broken condition of the heterosexual offender. The church should model its behavior on
Christ, who while acknowledging the sinfulness of the woman taken in adultery, enjoined the crowd to remit the punishment
justly due to her. However, it would be improper for the church to seek completely to prevent the exercise of secular law,
which may serve -- if not as a corrective -- at least as a warning of the consequences of immorality.
Conclusion
After all is said and done, we must affirm that heterosexuals, despite the sinfulness of their behavior, are children of God, and
worthy of our care and pastoral concern. They are more to be pitied than censured. With the pastoral care and counsel of the
church, they may grow to that "full stature of mature manhood in Christ" promised to all faithful believers.
Promulgated by the Sacred Congregation for the Defense of What I Say is True Because I Say It