John F. Harvey

Homosexuality as a Pastoral Problem

Priests find little help in the moral theology manuals when they are confronted with cases of homosexuality. If they turn to the psychological literature on the subject, very probably they become more confused, such a riot of opinions do they meet. Were homosexual practices a rarity, the situation would be serious enough, but in view of the fact that indulgence in such tendencies is on the increase—at least in the opinion of many priests consulted by the writer—it is well to consider the nature and complex causality of homosexuality, some of the prevalent attitudes towards it, the insidious philosophy which regards it as unavoidable, and the pastoral treatment of it. In the preparation of this article the writer has talked with many priests in different dioceses, and he has met with a wide variety of opinions on the subject. Some betrayed an emotional revulsion even to a pastoral discussion of inversion, quoting St. Paul that such things should not even be mentioned among us. Others dismissed the subject with the abrupt declaration that nothing could be done for inverts, and the writer was wasting his time. Still others assumed a harsh attitude of bitter condemnation, which, unfortunately, has driven many homosexuals far away from the reception of the sacraments. Others want to help such penitents but feel wholly inadequate to the problem. Others, again, explained that they had been able to do something with souls so afflicted, at a high price in time, patience, and sacrifice on their part, but with a deep desire to help still more. The utter need, then, for a pastoral study of the problem has driven the writer to set down these considerations with the hope that they will be of help to some of his fellow priests confronted with a similar situation.

Book Review: The Church and the HomosexualThe Church And The Homosexual. By McNeillJohn J., S.J. Kansas City, Kan.: Sheed, Andrews And McMeel, 1976. Pp. 211. 10.00.

anything of importance about sin, and Christological debates are not given prominence. On the other hand, liberal theologians are forced to answer questions, especially regarding the particularity of Christianity, which were not as intrinsic or salient to their thought as H. would have it. Further, H.s entire analysis of Mathews and Rauschenbusch rests precariously on the fragile foundation of two books, Christianity and the Social Crisis and The Faith of Modernism, leading him to make some careless and oversimplified statements such as the one about Rauschenbuschs views on personal regeneration. One also wonders why Shirley Jackson Case and Edward Scribner Ames are whizzed past without pause. Quibbles about omission, however, only serve to underscore the merit of this remarkable study and the limelight it deserves.