Moral and Scientific Knowledge

Because modern science studies only observable and testable phenomena, it obviously cannot determine the moral acceptability of these phenomena. This does not mean that science has no role to play in Christian discourse, however. The Orthodox Church rejects the troubled epistemologies of explicitly anti-scientific movements such as young-earth creationism. Likewise, it would be foolish to think that Orthodox Christians could justifiably ignore modern empirical findings on a topic as complex as homosexuality. I would like to share my views, and to hear from others, about the ways that such research might inform moral thought and pastoral practice.

As a starting point, I would suggest that, to the extent that Orthodox approaches to the issue of homosexuality have relied on empirical “evidence” that has been shown to be inaccurate, they should be amended based on new research. For instance, it was once believed — and some Orthodox clergy still claim — that homosexual orientation can result from abuse as a child. Portraying homosexuality as the consequence of a violent act has been used to bolster the case that gay people live in delusion caused by deep spiritual injury. [1] The results of studies testing the claim are typified by a recent statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics: “Although there continues to be controversy and uncertainty as to the genesis of the variety of human sexual orientations, there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation.” [2] This discovery is by no means incidental to the pastoral questions raised by homosexuality, as the spiritual needs of someone who has suffered a childhood trauma will obviously be quite different from those of someone who has not.

This misconception also figures in the familiar debate over whether homosexuality is “natural.” St. Paul famously lamented, in the first chapter of his letter to the Romans, that some gentiles had abandoned “natural sexual relations” by having same-sex intercourse. St. John Chrysostom calls homosexual activity a “monstrous insaneness.” It is crucial to understand that no premodern writer conceived sexuality as a fixed psychosexual orientation; effectively, all human beings were believed to be innately heterosexual. That this is not the case should caution us to interpret patristic writings with care. [3] Nevertheless, other Fathers have emphasized that scriptural passages about “nature” refer to divinely-created nature rather than observation of the fallen world. For this reason, the putative naturalness of homosexuality cannot be dispositive — obviously, Christians are expected not to act on all of their biologically “natural” instincts! Still, it does not follow that “fallen” nature is irrelevant to an Orthodox perspective on sexuality. A Christian’s experience of divine love and theosis is built upon his or her daily experience of genuine relationships. If homosexuality is genetically determined, as many scientists now believe, the most authentic love for another human being of which many gay people are capable may well be experienced through acceptance of their orientation. The relationship between biology, psychology, and spirituality in the lives of homosexual Christians requires much further study. [4]

Sociological findings may have an important role to play in this effort. Claims about humankind’s sexual nature that simply ignore empirical evidence often risk degenerating into fundamentalism. At the extreme, God-given human nature comes to be seen as a rulebook of arbitrarily permitted and forbidden behaviors. The aligning of one’s life to God’s destiny for humanity requires the nurturing of full personhood, not the simplistic application of regulations. It is worth noting that unlike homosexuality, second marriages for divorced persons were explicitly denounced by our Lord; if any aspect of relationships or sexuality might be said with conviction to be outside of God’s design for humanity, surely it is they. Nevertheless, while it is easy to see, in the abstract, that divorce and remarriage were not part of God’s plan, it is also easy to see how, in a specific situation, they may be the best available path for an individual Christian. Likewise, observational evidence can help us understand the circumstances under which gay people can flourish as Christians. As Jesus told his disciples, “A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.” Can a faithful homosexual relationship sometimes be a valid path to holiness? Empirical research can never provide a satisfactory answer to this question, but it can support our ongoing reflection. As we acquire sociological data about the actual lives of committed gay couples — data which could never have been collected until recently — this information can enrich the Church’s pastoral response. [5]

Current scientific knowledge poses legitimate challenges to existing theological and pastoral understandings of homosexuality, but the Church can and will meet these challenges. Contemporary discussion about homosexuality is part of a broader conversation about the role of sexuality in Christian anthropology. Orthodox Christians need never fear the outcome of prayerful, respectful discussion conducted in a good-faith search to understand God’s will in contemporary life. As our Lord told his disciples, “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.” As this discussion continues, let us pray that our discourse will be guided by the Holy Spirit.

Notes

[1] Typical is an online posting by Fr. Mark Hodges on June 1, 2011. Fr. Hodges stated that many gay people “became such because they had been sexually abused,” accompanying this claim with a graphic description of violent anal intercourse. http://www.monomakhos.com/2011/06/time-out-reset-and-reboot/#comment-7901

[2] American Academy of Pediatrics, “Clinical Report: Sexual Orientation and Adolescents,” Pediatrics v. 113 n. 6 (June 2004) available at http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;113/6/1827

[3] Without condoning homosexuality, Fr. John Breck notes: “Chrysostom’s emotional rhetoric is to be explained, at least in part, by the fact that he believed homosexual activity to be purely voluntary, a willful perversion of the heterosexuality common to all men. This view is no longer tenable, since there is definitely a psychologically as well as genetically conditioned sexual ‘orientation’ that in many if not most cases is irreversible. It is this clinically established fact that has led moral theologians to reassess the relationship between orientation and behavior, as well as the moral significance of homosexual acts themselves.” John Breck, The Sacred Gift of Life: Orthodox Christianity and Bioethics (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1998), 112.

[4] A readable (though slightly outdated) introduction to the science of sexual orientation is Chandler Burr, “Homosexuality and Biology,” The Atlantic (June 1997) available at http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1997/06/homosexuality-and-biology/4683/

[5] For example, on the general lack of sociological research on lesbian and gay families — a situation which is finally beginning to change — see Katherine R. Allen and David H. Demo, “The Families of Lesbians and Gay Men: A New Frontier in Family Research,” Journal of Marriage and Family v. 57 n. 1 (Feb. 1995)