“Can gays and lesbians come out to be faithful Catholics?”, U.S. Catholic, August 1992. “Born gay?” by Joe Dallas, Christianity Today, June 22, 1992.
by Dr. Ralph Blair
Two cover stories, two questions, two conclusions. The first, in an award-winning Claretian publication, is an interview with Sister Jeannine Gramick, a nun, Ph.D. mathematician, and co-founder of a ministry for lesbian and gay Catholics. She says: “I’ve met lots of lesbians and gay Catholics who are people of tremendous faith, and their faith [has] nourished my faith. … If our parishes would become more attuned to social justice, we would see lesbian and gay people under the umbrella of social justice. A lot of social and ecclesiastical injustices exist in our Catholic churches”. She concludes: “We have to acknowledge that some of the things we were taught [on homosexuality] were wrong … The one thing we need to do as a church is acknowledge our sins against lesbian and gay people … We need to make a public apology for the oppression to which we have contributed – perhaps unwittingly”.
The apology for which Gramick calls echoes Charles Grandison Finney’s in this his bicentennial year. In his Letters on Revival this great 19th century evangelist, abolitionist and Oberlin College president preached against slavery: “Is it not time for us, brethren, to repent, to be candid and search out wherein we have been wrong and publicly and privately confess it, and pass public resolutions in our general ecclesiastical bodies, recanting and confessing what has been wrong – confessing in our pulpits, through the press, and in every proper way our sins as Christians and as ministers. … May the Lord have mercy on us.” Sadly, civil religionists control much of evangelicalism today. Instead of repentance for homophobia and heterosexism, these sins are baptized by establishment evangelicalism.
CT’s “Born gay?” is answered in the negative by its own subtitle: “How politics have skewed the debate over the biological causes of homosexuality”. In facct, the article itself is an example of how the antigay politics of Evangelicaland skews the debate. But it does not demonstrate its point that so-called gay politics is behind or even supportive of a biological explanation for homosexuality. Indeed, there is vigorous debate within the progay movement over whether the biological evidence is, politically, an asset or a liability. Political prejudice is evident also in CT’s selection of the writer to “examine” (his word) the biological literature. Since even among the thousands of evangelicals with science degrees (2,500 of us are members of the evangelical American Scientific Affiliation), only some would qualify to assess sophisticated neuroscience research, what is the justification for the assignment of Joe Dallas, president of the Exodus network of discredited “ex-gay” promises? (He admitted when pressed on KKLA [01/25/91] that “ex-gay” does not mean ex-homosexual but merely “Christians who have homosexual tendencies who would rather not”. Can it be that Christians in science might not be so easily recruited for such a mindless attack on brain research?
Dallas is naïve in his handling of the restraint found in research science, misreading it as a weakness. He does cite quotations of scientists who raise questions about supposedly “progay” findings, but what qualifies him to judge between these views? Having set up a straw man “ ‘nature versus nurture’ debate”, he is unprepared for the fact that scientists (including those he tries to refute) moved beyond such either/or explanations long ago. Dallas fails to appreciate the complexity of relationships between psychosocial and neurophysiological factors in etiology and distinctions between etiology and correlation and cause and mechanism. He also misses the point that no matter what is or isn’t “inborn” in sexual orientation, the person experiences immutable sexual orientation as though it were “inborn”. Anyone who reflects on it for a moment realizes that one’s own sexual orientation – whether heterosexual or homosexual – feels like something one was “born with”, something one simply is. This is the point for all practical purposes, no matter what scientists learn about the neurophysiological and psychosocial factors and their unavoidable interplay in the neurochemistry and neuroanatomy of the brain.
When Dallas finally says, “Let research conclude what it may about the causes; genetic origins do not justify sinful behavior”, he hides behind a useless shibboleth: “God’s standards are absolute and not subject to our latest discoveries”. Tell it to Paul. Tell it to Copernicus. Tell it to Luther. (Ironically, this issue of CT carries a full-page ad for a book that “sheds much new light … needed for a long time” on Bible verses long used to oppress women, an essay by a black alumna of a Christian college that had supported the KKK when she attended, a “redefinition … long overdue” of Catholic charismatics formerly held to be sub-standard by evangelicals, theological shifts on ecology, and even unknowing commendations of closeted gays!) Dallas
Dallas ends by saying that James Dobson “frequently refers to a ‘civil war’ in America between conservative and liberal forces. This war”, Dallas warns, “seems to be escalating”. But he fails to note that there was a real Civil War over another social issue, i.e., slavery, where the conservative forces used Bible verses in a refusal to empathize with slaves just as today’s conservatives use Bible verses in their refusal to empathize with homosexuals. Quoting again from Finney: “Revivals are hindered when ministers and churches take wrong ground in regard to any question involving human rights”.