Homosexual activity is supposedly sinful because "every homosexual act is directed against the basic images given us in Scripture of how God is related to the world and of how Christ is related to the church." So said Prof. Robert Cooper in excerpts from a 1978 article, “Homosexual Acts: Image and Tradition," posted this morning by Pontificator. Cooper continues:
Every marital act of sexual intercourse is given life by the image of God as the creator and by the image of Christ as the bridegroom of his church. Every marital act of sexual intercourse reaffirms and instantiates the truth of that act’s enabling image: humanity is male and female, and in that union of male and female with each other there is wholeness.
.... [E]xtra-marital liaisons [are] a travesty upon the images of God-creator, male-female wholeness, and Christ-church; and against the sacrament of marriage. Such acts constitute an abasing of the imagery and an abasing of the theological truth about us and about God.
... Worse than that, [a homosexual act] is an action which proclaims that the fundamental image, truth, is a lie. Such acts are per se contemptuous of the images, treating them not only as if they did not matter, or as if they had no power, but as if they, indeed, were not. ...
Not only are homosexual acts directed against the images, they are directed against the derived integrity of every sexual act within marriage, indeed against every heterosexual act. Each such act stands over against the marital condition and casts scorn upon it. [Ed: Some emphasis added, some original.]
Whew. Talk about overheated argument.
Of course marriage is holy and beautiful. We do well to honor, support, and strengthen it as an institution. I've been married for more than 20 years (to my first wife, no less), and wouldn't want any other way of life. It's even OK to metaphorize or analogize marriage as an image of God's relationship to us.
But we would do well to remember that metaphors and analogies can only be pushed so far: the map is not the territory. Cooper evidently doesn't remember this. Instead he sets up a false dilemna:
- In positing a link between marital sexual intercourse and God, he elevates marital sex almost to the status of an object of worship;
- Then, proceeding from that premise, he claims that anyone who engages in non-marital sex is, by definition (according to him), contemptuous of God.
Cooper's logic doesn't come close to making the grade. That marital sex is sacred, does not by any means establish that non-marital sex is automatically bad.
There may (or may not) be valid arguments why homosexual activity is wrong. Cooper's is not one of them.
Subscribe
to my feed
Some people really do seem to believe that gay people are just ruining it for everybody, by the mere fact of our existance. I've seen this "image" argument before and it's always struck me as truly odd, as if some people just can't stop thinking about this issue.
But I think this kind of screechiness means that we're winning the argument. Surely, when they have to dig back into depths of the 1970s for such bizarre stuff it's a sign of desperation.
Folks: God made this world, and threw homosexuals into the mix for some reason. Gay people have contributed a great deal to the world (and here we usually quote that "By their fruits ye shall know them") and I have a definite feeling we're meant to be here.
I'm not alone in saying this, either. Edward Norman, a canon of the Church of England (and soon to become a Catholic), wrote a new CoE catechism in 2001 and apparently suggested that "homosexuality has been 'divinely ordered'":
Posted by: bls | November 19, 2004 at 08:36 AM
(Don't forget, too, that in 1978, homosexuality was still generally considered to be a mental illness and a compulsion. It was still, in fact, against the law in most places, I believe, and "the love that dare not speak its name," so shameful was it then. It's almost impossible to describe, at this point, how terrible a thing it was to be gay then - it was actually nearly the worst possible fate a person could fall subject to. This was mostly, I think, the residue of the McCarthy era.
Amazing, actually, to remember that, considering "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" and "Ellen." But it was like that. That's why it's interesting, and telling, IMO, when these sorts of things get quoted today; the two eras are nothing alike, and things that were written then really have no relevence to what people know today.)
Posted by: bls | November 19, 2004 at 08:56 AM
Sorry to post again, but after a web search I found the relevant section from the Catechism I referenced above:
Posted by: bls | November 19, 2004 at 09:06 AM
There's also a good discussion of Cooper over on the Salty Vicar's blog under the title <"http://saltyvicar.typepad.com/salt/2004/11/pontifications_.html">Patterns of Sexuality and Scripture.
Posted by: David Huff | November 19, 2004 at 10:34 AM
There's also a good discussion of Cooper over on the Salty Vicar's blog under the title Patterns of Sexuality and Scripture.
Posted by: David Huff | November 19, 2004 at 10:34 AM
QC, Your argument that Cooper pushes the analogy too far misses the fact that marriage is a sacrament in which the proper materials are as essential as the proper form. Human beings have no choice,but to use the materials ascribed and instituted by Christ. I guess Episcopalians are ambivalent as to whether marriage is a sacrament, but even if it isn't considered to be a sacrament instituted by Christ; Episcopalians have a sacramental sensibility which intuits the the essential connection between the material and the spiritual. I believe that is what Cooper is getting at with his reference to the Biblical images which open us to the encounter with God.
bls, you have an interesting sense of chronology. Perhaps I'm ageing ungracefully, but I don't consider 1978 to be a different era. BTW, 1978 is as far from the McCarthy era as it is from "Ellen." The growing tolerance in the law towards homosexual acts is generally a good thing, but it would be a mistake to conclude that tolerance proves moral acceptability rather than indifference.
If Mr. Norman is entering the Catholic Church, he will be abandoning the above-referenced opinion(at least as it pertains to the morality of a homosexual act) at the door.
Posted by: phil swain | November 20, 2004 at 08:07 AM
QC, Your argument that Cooper pushes the analogy too far misses the fact that marriage is a sacrament in which the proper materials are as essential as the proper form. Human beings have no choice,but to use the materials ascribed and instituted by Christ. I guess Episcopalians are ambivalent as to whether marriage is a sacrament, but even if it isn't considered to be a sacrament instituted by Christ; Episcopalians have a sacramental sensibility which intuits the the essential connection between the material and the spiritual. I believe that is what Cooper is getting at with his reference to the Biblical images which open us to the encounter with God.
bls, you have an interesting sense of chronology. Perhaps I'm ageing ungracefully, but I don't consider 1978 to be a different era. BTW, 1978 is as far from the McCarthy era as it is from "Ellen." The growing tolerance in the law towards homosexual acts is generally a good thing, but it would be a mistake to conclude that tolerance proves moral acceptability rather than indifference.
If Mr. Norman is entering the Catholic Church, he will be abandoning the above-referenced opinion(at least as it pertains to the morality of a homosexual act) at the door.
Posted by: phil swain | November 20, 2004 at 08:08 AM
QC, Your argument that Cooper pushes the analogy too far misses the fact that marriage is a sacrament in which the proper materials are as essential as the proper form. Human beings have no choice,but to use the materials ascribed and instituted by Christ. I guess Episcopalians are ambivalent as to whether marriage is a sacrament, but even if it isn't considered to be a sacrament instituted by Christ; Episcopalians have a sacramental sensibility which intuits the the essential connection between the material and the spiritual. I believe that is what Cooper is getting at with his reference to the Biblical images which open us to the encounter with God.
bls, you have an interesting sense of chronology. Perhaps I'm ageing ungracefully, but I don't consider 1978 to be a different era. BTW, 1978 is as far from the McCarthy era as it is from "Ellen." The growing tolerance in the law towards homosexual acts is generally a good thing, but it would be a mistake to conclude that tolerance proves moral acceptability rather than indifference.
If Mr. Norman is entering the Catholic Church, he will be abandoning the above-referenced opinion(at least as it pertains to the morality of a homosexual act) at the door.
Posted by: phil swain | November 20, 2004 at 08:08 AM
bls, you have an interesting sense of chronology. Perhaps I'm ageing ungracefully, but I don't consider 1978 to be a different era. BTW, 1978 is as far from the McCarthy era as it is from "Ellen." The growing tolerance in the law towards homosexual acts is generally a good thing, but it would be a mistake to conclude that tolerance proves moral acceptability rather than indifference.
1978 was 25 years ago; this qualifies it as having been "during the last generation." I came of age during that period, and I know exactly what it was like to be gay then. Gay rights had just barely begun in earnest, and I imagine that this hysterical screed was written in reaction to that fact.
"Residue," BTW, means "leftovers."
If Mr. Norman is entering the Catholic Church, he will be abandoning the above-referenced opinion(at least as it pertains to the morality of a homosexual act) at the door.
Hmmm. In all other cases, we talk of unity in the Church, and that we all belong to the mystical Body of Christ. I wonder why this one case would be different....
Posted by: bls | November 20, 2004 at 09:54 AM
QC, whatever one thinks of Cooper's arguments, your criticisms do not touch his argument. Of course, I do have the advantage of having read his entire essay, of which I only cited a small portion. One really does need to obtain a copy of his essay and read it in its entirety before passing judgment.
Cooper's argument operates at an intuitive, sacramental, symbolic level. It is very much a Christian reflection. It presumes that the readers of the essay are "willing to give consent to the Bible’s images, rhythms, and concepts." Outside of that context, I readily grant that it is unpersuasive. After all, it is only within a Judeo-Christian context that the claim that "all sex is marital" makes any sense.
Posted by: Pontificator | November 20, 2004 at 03:11 PM
Pontificator, how do my criticisms not touch Cooper's arguments? I rather thought I demolished them :-)
Also, Al, I must take issue with your comment that "it is only within a Judeo-Christian context that the claim 'all sex is marital' makes any sense." Non-marital sex evidently is disfavored in other religions and cultures as well. Hinduism is one example; see, e.g., http://hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_extramarital.htm. As another example, Islam punishes adultery and fornication.
Phil Swain, I have no quarrel with elevating marriage to a sacrament. Cooper's fallacy is in declaring that, given that marriage is a sacrament, then any other sexual relationship is necessarily bad. I'll probably anger some traditionalists by saying this, but Cooper's argument is akin to asserting that, because we consume bread and wine in the sacrament of the Eucharist, we may only do so in a Eucharist. The logic simply isn't credible, let alone persuasive.
Posted by: D. C. | November 21, 2004 at 04:04 PM
Pontificator, how do my criticisms not touch Cooper's arguments? I rather thought I demolished them :-)
Also, Al, I must take issue with your comment that "it is only within a Judeo-Christian context that the claim 'all sex is marital' makes any sense." Non-marital sex evidently is disfavored in other religions and cultures as well. Hinduism is one example; see, e.g., http://hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_extramarital.htm. As another example, Islam punishes adultery and fornication.
Phil Swain, I have no quarrel with elevating marriage to a sacrament. Cooper's fallacy is in declaring that, given that marriage is a sacrament, then any other sexual relationship is necessarily bad. I'll probably anger some traditionalists by saying this, but Cooper's argument is akin to asserting that, because we consume bread and wine in the sacrament of the Eucharist, we may only do so in a Eucharist. The logic simply isn't credible.
Posted by: D. C. | November 21, 2004 at 04:06 PM
D.C., while it may be true that other cultures (you cite Hinduism, for example) might understand the Christian claim that all sex is marital, this still does not mean that Hindus would understand the specifically Christian formulation of this claim and the reasons advanced in support of it. Cooper's piece is very much a Christian reflection. It presupposes a surrender to the biblical witness. In the absence of such a surrender, his piece will be utterly unconvincing, perhaps incomprehensible, whether that person is Hindu, Moslem, secularist, or atheist.
Cooper's essay of course cannot stand alone. There is so much more to be said when discussing a Christian ethic of sexual behavior. But he does invoke a dimension that is so often ignored--namely, the symbolic structure of Christian faith and how it impinges on Christian living.
On the practice of homosexuality within Hindu culture, I suggest you take a look at David Greenberg's massive study The Construction of Homosexuality. Ancient Judaism may not be have been utterly singular in its maritalization of sexuality, but it was singular enough.
Posted by: Pontificator | November 22, 2004 at 01:16 PM