Wrongly using biblical text

Clearly, we need to bring rational and open discussion to the "problem" of lesbian and gay students, staff, and faculty at DePaul. Yet in his letter, "Homosexuality violates Catholicism" (May 22), James Rowe makes a number of truthful claims about homosexuality and the use of biblical interpretation in its condemnation that do not further inquiry into this admittedly controversial topic. Mr. Rowe cites biblical verses in order to neutralize the argument that DePaul as a Catholic institution should allow gays and lesbians dignity. He cites the Bible not to further inquiry but to end it. Such dogmatic appeals to "what the Bible says" in ethical arguments is misguided because it does not explicitly acknowledge the agency and contingency of the interpreter. It is also an uninformed reading of the text.

Mr. Rowe cites Leviticus 18:22 as a text proving his case. Readers unfamiliar with Leviticus may be surprised to learn that it carries other prohibitions (which modern Christians routinely ignore) against crossbreeding cattle, sowing two kinds of seed in one field, wearing two kinds of fabrics or getting a tattoo (Leviticus 19:19­28). To single out one prohibition and ignore the rest is at best selective reading and at worst downright hypocrisy. We must simply stop giving that kind of proof-texting any credibility.

Interestingly, Mr. Rowe cites the apostle Paul as authoritative. Yet, again, readers unfamiliar with Paul's theology may be surprised to learn that he opposed Christian observance of the Old Testament law (Galatians. 5:4). The law, Paul claimed, was no longer valid. In addition, the meaning of Paul's words in Romans 1:27, which is in dispute among biblical scholars, must be found in its literary context. The overarching concern is a wholesale condemnation of ancient pagan religion. The "error" condemned is not homosexuality, but Greco-Roman polytheism; the "due penalty" for such so-called idolatry is homoerotic desire (Romans 1:20­27). I doubt many today would seriously give credibility to such an etiology that averts homoeroticism to be a God-given penalty for worshipping a statue of the Greek god Zeus.

More shocking is Paul's claim that homoeroticism has divine, not human, origins. There may or may not be other New Testament texts that can inform the modern debate over gay and lesbian rights, but the aforementioned verse in Romans is not one of them.

In the end, the debate over homosexuality will not be decided by the Bible, any more than the debate over slavery, the emancipation of women or the effectiveness of warfare was. Such proof-texting turns the biblical witness into a sacred cow, a violence against the text that reduces its depth in the attempt to control its meaning. The "obvious" meaning of the text is not obvious to everyone, but is a social construction of the preaching, teaching and ritual life in some local church congregation. Such an appeal to local dogmatism betrays the legacy of the word Catholic's root meaning­­global, universal, multicultural.

J. Albert Harrill is an assistant professor of religious studies.