Religion

Christianity and homosexuality

Lord Soper interviewed by Peter Storey

Peter Storey: How do you think the Christian churches view the problem of homosexuality today and how do you, as a church leader, see it?

Lord Soper: You'd better let me speak simply as Lord Soper because in strict truth I'm not the leader of the Methodist Church. (We have a separate president every year. I'm one of the senior ex-presidents.) I think the overall reaction of Christians and everybody else is to think that they're normal people: they don'tlike abnormality, they're more or less conditioned by a whole backlog of prejudice. Therefore, most people within the Methodist Church would prefer not to think about homosexuality, and if they do would find it more comfortable to think of it as a sin that ought to be reproved and something which it would be slightly wrong even to think about — this is a traditional attitude.

P.S: And you . . . ?

L.S: I realised myself something of the problem when I was one of the chaplains at Pentonville prison and was thrown into contact with a great many homosexuals there. I had the quite scarifying experience of seeing a man immediately after he'd been birched and found that he enjoyed it — he wasn't just homosexual, he was also what is called perverted in other ways, and he had been sexually stimulated by the beating he had received.

I think the great distinction one has to draw, is between homosexuality as a condition for

which people are not responsible, and a series of practices which are desirable, some of which are permissible, some of which I think are not. There's the old proverb (if the Chi nese didn't invent it I think they should have done) that you can't prevent a bird alighting on your hair but you can prevent it making a nest there. I would firmly agree with anyone who wanted to say that homosexuals have a raw deal, and being sinners like the rest of us make their own condition in many cases a lot worse, but I'm convinced that we all are a mixture of homosexual and heterosexual ten dencies — I'm lucky enough to have the balance where normality suggests it should be and where, obviously, the creative elements of sex are to be found, and I've worked out of my system any reVulsion and any embarrassment that once I had, and certain,ly I've worked out of my system any of these quite ridiculous and dangerous feelings of hostility to the homosexual per se. I think there are two sorts of homosexuals, too — I'm not speaking clinically, I'm not a medical practitioner — and I'm perfectly satisfied from experience that there are homosexuals who are, in their chemical and physical make-up, predisposed to certain attitudes against which I'm allergic, and allergic to attitudes to which I'm attracted. I think there are others who, by force of circumstances or environment or, in some cases, selfishness and self-indulgence, have disturbed the balance which otherwise might not have been disturbed. That is why I am totally opposed to the present penal systems which, in nine cases out of ten, will create an environment of segregation and, at any rate, conditions which will make it more difficult for the heterosexual to remain heterosexual or make it easier for the homosexual to slip over into more definite homosexual practices.

P.S: But what about outside the prison situation which is, after all, a rather special and artificial environment?

L.S: Outside the context of prison, of course, I agree that it is as natural for the homosexual to express affection in the sexual context of homosexuality as it is for another person to express affection in heterosexual ways. For that reason, I'm perfectly satisfied that it is no more wrong for a couple of men to hold hands as an expression of affection than it is for a fellow to hold hands with his girl, and in fact the idiocy is to think that this is an act in itself — it's part of a process. The question is how far can that sexual process be justified, particularly when you live in a society which imposes corporate rules which would not apply if you lived on a desert island where there were just two of you. And, therefore, although I suppose I have an aesthetic objection or an aesthetic distaste for some other forms of sexual expression, I'm blessed if I can say they're immoral — I can't see why they should be. For this reason I would say that they may well be permissible between

two people who are definitely homoseX though it depends on the environment, it pends on the degree of commitment, it pends quite obviously — though this is _word to brirrg in — whether the thing can ' sacramental' or not. We, of the Meth churches are now, I think, in the forefront those who've made up their minds on sett the issues to which other churches are, indifferent. I think the majority of Method would go along with the present homos laws — that homosexual practices by a in private are not necessarily sinful, let 0, criminal. What, of course, is behind all th: that the sexual act between heterosexue" an act with a creative element in it: the mosexual act is uncreative and is therefore., be deplored because it strikes against ! whole concept of life as being a creative perience.

P.S: It is sometimes argued, rightlY wrongly, that the homosexual tends to more promiscuous than the heterosexual..,

L.S: I don't like promiscuity anyway, means the trivialising of any human reln..,,P" ship. Promiscuity, I think, is wrong hew sexually and homosexually, becasue it trivialise life, it does tend to minimise value and depth of human relationsh After all, there is nothing so immediatelti obviously binding as a physical relatione't and my own experience is that those vio have separated a physical, sexual relation from the accompanying elements of ten , ness, responsibility and care, have done the' selves a profound injury.

PS: Much of the traditional moral teac by the churches, perhaps more especiallt, the Roman Catholic Church, has been v` largely focused on categories of sin. . . L.S: I suppose that the word 'sin 'has, suggest, been the key word in much ol Christian teaching, but I think sin is alvi, in the attitude which lies behind the sop much as in the act itself. And, thereforel, my judgement a sin is waywardness, thS0( to say that it is departing from a path 0...if tent and purpose that is commensurate the kingdom of God and in the spirit ofJer Of course, let's face it, you and I are 11 capped by the fact that we've practicallr no precise evidence from the teaching Jesus about the matter at all, and I Iv agree with others that we can't either ,0 done or condemn. As you know, too. scriptural authority for divorce or no_frin vorce is pretty dubious. Of course this 115 clear teaching is open to abuse, but renterno; that I said that sin is waywardness ifl sense that it diverts you from the pathif.6 intent of seeking first the kingdom of and its righteousness. I think a sin is anYt, tude which eventuates in an act which P.,w; man further off that goal with his fellor( with himself. Mainline Christianity harthe course, oversimplified the whole issue ol and simply said: "These things are WIty these things are right," and in many case things that are right happen to be the 0'2 which the majority of people find recti lable with what they think is right. Thejp no doubt that our stand has been colourlf our tradition and culture, and we're 1:1!4 blame. (No one was more stupid and fono about sex than dear old John Wesley, 1.11 ended up marrying a thoroughly undesir'ii widow and flirted around with all sortesi young girls on the back of his horse itc talked to them in Greek and so on.) F01.41 reason I think it's very important to 1111:11 clear teaching in these matters and it area in which practically all the guide"yr) have disappeared for most young Pe°_, today. I don't think we realise to what Ire tent young people are not necessarily ifico ponsible but completely irregular by anY of objective standard. rcil P.S: Don't you think that the Chu tio should pay more attention to homosa I and while not making them feel differ°

least show a particular Christ-like concern for them? •

L.S: It you take homosexuals as a specific group I must say that neither the Christian church as a whole, nor the Methodist Church itself, has a specific and articulate care for ' this group, though it has a duty to do so. (That's why you're talking to me now and I'm talking to you.) But there is one overriding factor which does operate in this field as in every other field — you can't do everything at once, and it may be that the defence which the Methodist Church has put up is because it's been preoccupied in past decades with other problems which it has felt to be more important. For instance, the Methodist Church at the turn of the century was preoccupied with alcohol, and then we had a stage when we were much more occupied' with poverty, and now I don't know where we are but we're likely to get back to alcoholism I think, or drugs. Certainly there is a profound need for intelligent and charitable and specific care for the homosexual, though it is very true that he is a queer bird, from our standpoint. We're queer birds from his stand' point, but the definition of queer is a numerical definition — if there were more homosexuals than there were heterosexuals, well, we wouldn't be here! What would man be without a woman? Of course, the answer is scarce!

P.S: Would you agree that most men, in the course of their growing up, go through a socalled 'homosexual phase' — whether they see it as such or not?

L.S: I should have thought that at some time and in some way almost every adolescent has some kind of homosexual experience, or a . great many of them do. What I object to is ' the idea that you can lump all homosexuals together in one category and all heterosexuals in the other. I think there are a lot of bisexual people about, and I feel that : this is perhaps the most hopeful field of enquiry. I don't know whether early diagnosis of homosexuality in children can be corrected and I think it's only in the bisexual field that you're likely to find this out — to what extent. the bisexual is a product of environment and circumstances and so forth, or whether there are basic chemical or physical, or whatever you call it, conditions. Because, apparently, there are quite alarming and extraordinary things that can be done medically — hormone treatments of one kind and another — it wouldn't sr:if-Orme me if homosexuality does become susceptible of radical treatment. Whether or not the psychological superstructure of homosexuality is entirely dependent on these chemical processes or not I don't know.

P.S: But many people ostracise homosexuals as a matter of course.

L.S: A lot of people in society ostracise the homosexual, but if they were logical they'd ostracise half the art forms of the world, too, because so many of them have come from homosexual sources. Well, not half, that's an exaggeration, but the great artist, I think, has to be bisexual in the sense that unless he can comprehend what is essentially feminine in what he does, as well as what is essentially masculine, he's • not a universal artist. And therefore the tendency would be that those who are transcendent artists are those in whom the balance is rather more delicately poised than in most other people, and therefore most easily dislocated. I've no doubt that thereis-a-large element of moral irresponsibilAfrimong homosexuals. Why shouldn't there be? — They're of the same stuff in the eyes of God as other people, and if you've got a world of immorality in the heterosexual world — and my God you have! — why should you expect homosexuals to be a higher race apart? I should have thought that we shall have a right to expect a more responsible attitude from homosexuals when we treat them better. I think we've got to be much more tolerant of them, in the sense that we've got to recognise that they are human beings and, incidentally, it is much more difficult for them to go ' straight' than it is for heterosexuals, if they know what going ' straight ' means or if they recognise what it implies. The thing which I think is so bad is making a joke out of homosexuality; it's a sick joke. Let's face it, heterosexuality is normal granted the universe; God may have had other ideas and discarded them in his first fair copy. There is no doubt that heterosexuality is creative in the simplest sense of that word, and therefore homosexuality is an abnormality. For this reason I think it would be in their interests to try to get cured, but you can't expect them at the stage at which they are homosexuals necessarily to agree with you. That is why I should have thought that the most productive therapy is that which can begin with the child — if possible — rather than attempt to change the adult. It seems to me that if you can apply your research at that end of the time-scale you're going to have a much better chance because most homosexuals that I come across say that they only became aware of it at a certain period. If, therapy could be applied then I think that would be admirable.

P.S: How do you feel about the present state of the law, and the various suggestions that have been made recently about its reform?

L.S: I don't want the law changed much more at the moment, and I don't think it can be in the present state of public opinion. What I would like to see is a franker and more cornpassionate and, at the same time, a more rigorous understanding of what homosexuality is, and .a more determined effort to break through the barriers of suspicion and embarrassment — and embarrassment is a very big' element here. I wonder how many Methodist parsons at the moment would address or take part in conversations with homosexual groups. Now I think it would be a very good thing if they did. If we've got one great advantage over previous generations it is that young people are prepared to talk about anything. I don't need to say this because I'm sure you realise it, that one's attitude to all sexual matters varies, or at any rate becomes more or less intense, according to the age and circumstance at which you make your observations. I mean, I'm an oldish man now — you would think I'm an old man! — and when one is older one can look at these matters with a more detached eye. It is one of the simple facts of life that for most people up to and even beyond middle age sex is a dominant factor in their lives, and in some cases is almost obsessive. And if that is so, then not to give it its proper place in the curriculum of Christian teaching and understanding is, of course, absurd.

P.S: What, then, would you like to see as the future attitude of society towards the homosexual?

L.S:' I would like it phased in two ways. I would like to see society bent on reducing as far as possible the amount of suffering, deprivation and frustration that homosexuality does cause in the lives of so many of its members. I would like society to realise that we are moving into a realm where practically everything is possible. (The question, though, is what is right? . . . I mean you can do prac tically anything you want to now.) Therefore I think we must keep not our options open, but our windows open — to let in any light that does come from the medical field, as I am sure it will do, and from the psycho-medical, psychosomatic field. And principally, I sup

pose — well, I don't suppose, I know — that the business of the Christian church is to

offer salvation to all men in the name of Christ, but not to try to channel that salvation necessarily in any one category of human personality or of human relationships. There is a kingdom of heaven for everybody! Peter Storey is a Roman Catholic priest engaged in full-time social work.