ROBERT
E. B U X B A U M
Homosexuality and Love SOME TIME AGO a community pastor approached me, asking in an almost desperate tone of voice, "What should the Christian approach be to homosexuality?" I sat with growing discomfort as he presented his problem to me. The church organist had been arrested by a detective on a charge of sodomy. While the first reaction of the congregation had been to dismiss him from his position, the pastor had prevailed upon the majority of the ruling elders to support him in his time of need. Christian love and acceptance were stressed in a letter to the whole congregation. Two elders resigned and one other family left the church in "righteous" indignation. But, on the whole, the pastor was convinced that the congregation had been helped to grow significantly in the understanding and living of their faith. As the church considered this matter, there was little or no doubt in the pastor's mind as to what was "the Christian approach." The problem arose after the immediate struggle. Now the organist was back at work and under the care of a somewhat pessimistic psychiatrist. Things were going well in the church, except for one thing: the organist was happy with his homosexuality! N o w that it was publicly known, he felt quite free to talk about it as a "preferred way of life." He often remarked to the pastor that what he would really like was a "few days of loving." The pastor, in turn, was generally his best nondirective self. But it had finally gotten to him. He found himself becoming quite angry. Even Christian love and acceptance seemed to have been stretched too far. It was at this point that he raised the question with me. Out of this encounter, this paper has grown. I had been able to be of very little help to the pastor. Although I had talked with a number of homosexuals in my work, I had not taken the opportunity, as a hospital chaplain, to think through their dynamics or the Christian faith as it is particularly related to their problems. I had heard many of the clich6s of the heterosexual world: "You can never help a homosexual;" "Most psychiatrists won't attempt to treat homosexuals;" "The only thing you can do for them is make them happy with their way of
Homosexuality and Love
i7
life;" and "Everybody has something of the homosexual within his make-up; it is just that some have much more than others." With these as my background, I found myself mouthing things I knew I had no real information about. My attempt to find out more about homosexuality has taken two slightly different paths. First, I turned to the written materials on homosexuality and on its relation to the Christian faith. Secondly, I sought a homosexual patient at the hospital with whom I entered into a psyehotherapeutie relationship. I had enough time with this patient to give me some "clues," some indications, as to how his case fitted into the several theories about homosexuality. Since then, work with several other homosexuals has confirmed my experience with him. It is largely due to these relationships that my thinking has taken the direction that it has.
A "working definition of Christian love It seems reasonable to begin our thinking about the relation between homosexuality and Christian love by arriving at a definition of Christian love. But it is evident that there are many definitions of love, and many different understandings of Christian love. I am unwilling to accept any division between love and Christian love. If we are to talk sense, we must remain consistent in our use of language. They are not two different entities. Rather, the second is just an extension of the first. I shall attempt to explain what I mean. In his book The Art of Loving, 1 Erich Fromm points out that, while there are many forms of love, there are four basic characteristics in all of these forms. They are: I) care, 2) responsibility, 3) respect and 4) knowledge? In the loving relationship, these four characteristics are always in operation. Love, then, is not something that one either has or has not. It is not a thing that we obtain or have given to us. Rather it is a quality of relationship. Any relationship that displays these four qualities at all levels may be said to be love or a loving relationship. It is understood as an adjective, not a noun. It must also be understood that the relationship must include all four qualities in order to fit the definition of love. Fromm has pointed out that each needs the other to be truly characterized as love. For example, he writes: "Responsibility could easily deteriorate into domination and possessiveness, were it not for a third component of love, respect. ''a
18
Journal of Religion and Health
Again: "To respect a person is not possible without knowing him; care and responsibility would be blind if they were not guided by knowledge. Knowledge would be empty if it were not motivated by concern. ''~ When we apply the prefix "Christian" to love, we are not talking about another characteristic or kind of love. W e are simply acknowledging the Source of the relationship. With or without the prefix, we are speaking about the same quality of relationship. But with the addit.ion of the word "Christian" we are stating that the relationship we have been describing is rooted ontologieally in, and derives its power from, God. This does not change the quality of the relationship; it simply places it within its proper context. On the other hand, to fail to acknowledge the Source of love cannot negate the Source; it means we simply fail to understand it fully. For our purposes, we will be concerned with the quality of the relationships between the homosexual and the heterosexual, between homosexuals themselves, and the psychic relationship of the individual homosexual with himself. Our question will be: To what extent is it possible for the homosexual to love? But before we proceed to this, we need to set aside one problem that might otherwise plague us. Sodom and Gomorrah: The Bible
It has long been assumed that the Bible itself provided the guide by which the Christian could measure and deal with homosexuality. In most instances, those who stood in condemnation of homosexuality called upon the story of Sodom and Gomorrah to prove that God Himself had made his judgment clear. Certainly, if God so clearly punished the people of these two ancient cities for homosexuality, no one could doubt that they were fulfilling God's will by supporting civil punishment for similar offenses. So clear was the relationship that one of the homosexual acts took upon itself the name of the city: sodomy. But let us examine this. I would refer you to the work so clearly laid out by D. S. Bailey in his book Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition. 5 Bailey's biblical erudition speaks for itself. He examines the scriptures carefully and writes: "The story does not in the least demand the assumption that the sin of Sodom was sexual, let alone homosexual--indeed, there is no evidence to show that vice of the latter kind was prevalent there. ''6 If he is correct, then how is it that mankind has Homosexuality and Love
~9
made this association these many centuries? To this he answers: "It is clear that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was an historical event, and that it was due to natural and not supernatural causes. The tradition that a Divine judgment fell upon the cities because of their wickedness may have been nothing more than a superstitious inference from the awful character of the disaster. If it had any foundation in fact, we still know nothing of the sin for which it was believed that they had been punished; there is no reason to suppose that it was sexual --still less, that it was homosexual.''7 His scholarly study points out the confusion in the translation process and suggests that this has been a prime cause of the misunderstanding. The result of Bailey's incisive examination is that "it is no longer permissible to take refuge in the contention that God himself pronounced these acts 'detestible and abominable' above every other sexual sin, nor to explain natural catastrophes and human disasters as his vengeance upon those who indulge in them. ''8 If homosexuality is condemned, it must be condemned on other grounds. If the homosexual is punished, we cannot transfer the causal justification for the punishment onto God. If he is to be accepted, the form of his sexual expression valued, it is not impeded by the biblical witness. Historically speaking, "both the Bible and the Roman law encouraged a severe treatment of sodomy, but there was also a mitigating influence, partly theological and partly ecclesiastical in character, which has usually been overlooked. Justinian, in his edicts, had insisted that homosexual acts were sins as well as crimes, and that the penalties of the secular law were only to be invoked against the obdurate and the unrepentant. ''~ It cannot be justly held that the church has always persecuted the homosexual. Actually, the homosexual has often been saved from more serious punishment only by the forgiving influence of the church. Those who would turn to the passages in the N e w Testament that are often cited as pronouncing the judgment of God upon the homosexual must remember that these were written within the context of the misunderstanding of the Sodom and Gomorrah story. Moreover, on the whole, "the N e w Testament is . . . surprisingly silent on the subject of homosexuality--surprisingly, because the problem was so widespread in the Graeco-Roman world. Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality, possibly because he never encountered it in the
zo
Journal of Religion and Health
remote province of Palestine whose life was so dominated by Jewish law and custom. The apostle Paul referred to the practice scathingly at several points. ''1~ But "it is significant that . . . the apostle traced homosexuality to idolatry, to the failure to know God aright. A false understanding of God leads to a distorted understanding of one's self and his proper role. ''lz The point is that the sin lay not in being a homosexual, but in the misuse of our potential. It may be likened to the fact that sex itself is not a sin; but the misuse of sex is. This point will be further clarified later in our discussion. The constitutional approach As we read the literature on homosexuality, it divides into two main approaches: constitutional and psychoanalytic. W e shall consider each of these approaches in an attempt to understand the nature of homosexuality and its relation to love. Perhaps one of the most vivid polemics for the constitutional approach comes from a Congregational minister, Robert Wood. In his book, Christ and the Homosexual, TM Wood makes an impassioned plea for acceptance of the homosexual and his homosexuality. In his pastoral experience with homosexuals he states that "the fundamental lesson to be learned in ministering to them is that they wish to be loved and treated like anyone else and accepted on equal terms, m3 Painting a vivid picture of the homosexual society and its fears and frustrations, Wood contends that since the homosexual is born with his homosexuality, he needs to be accepted for what he can in no wise avoid being. The morality of homosexuality, in Wood's view, is to be found in three conditions: i) "Homosexuality is a God-created way of protecting the human race on this planet from the suicide of over-population," 2) it makes "available opportunities for love for some who are unable to find them in heterosexual relations, a love which can be truly sacramental," and 3) it "provides an outlet for the expression of the human personality for those who cannot express themselves fully within heterosexuality.T M The assumption is that these are part of the correct order of creation, deriving their reality from God. If we grant this assumption, then his argument is very strong. The weaknesses of Wood's position are in his assumptions. There seems to be very good biblical witness to the two-sex nature of manHomosexuality and Love
2x
kind. 15 There seems to be none at all for the assumption that God created some people to be homosexual. In the application of the assumptions, we find even less acceptability. In this age, when there seems to be great concern about the problem of overpopulation, Wood appeals to some popular anxieties. However, there are more satisfactory ways of preventing overpopulation than homosexuality. Heterosexual expression serves many purposes in addition to procreation. To turn to homosexuality in an attempt to prevent overpopulation seems to me to be ridiculous. The second point assumes that the homosexual may participate in a loving relationship. While Wood points to a few homosexual "couples" who establish permanent relationships, he himself states that "the gay [homosexual] society is a promiscuous society.''1~ Certainly the widespread unfaithfulness among homosexuals indicates that the elements of care and responsibility are often missing. This cannot be refuted by pointing to heterosexual unfaithfulness because, despite Kinsey, the incidence of unfaithfulness is but a small fraction of what it is among homosexuals. Nor is it inherent in heterosexuality. Wood becomes very idealistic when he writes of a homosexual marriage: "If the love of the two is strong enough to overcome everything else, then the marriage will succeed and they can spend the next twenty or forty years together 'till death do us part.' ,,x7 By the "everything else" that needs to be overcome he means the social pressure against this type of "marriage," the demands of an essentially promiscuous society, the need to have a bond greater than that provided by sex alone, the easy dissolvability of the homosexual relationship, etc. Any degree of permanence within the relationship must find its genesis among all of these negative forces! It is not likely that this is a frequent possibility. The final basis that Wood mentions relies upon the assumption that if the homosexual does not have homosexual relationships there can be no other outlet for his creative personality. It assumes, in short, that every homosexual must remain a homosexual and never seek to find a cure. If homosexuality is constitutional, then nothing can be done about it! Like the color of one's skin, once the genes have determined its structure, one can only learn to live with it. This is an assumption that seems not to hold under the scrutiny of clinical experience. For example, Dr. Clifford Allen provides clinical evidence of at least eighteen cases in which he modesdy claims to have attained an "apparent cure. ''x8 z2
Journal of Religion and Health
H o w can this be possible if homosexuality is constitutional? Clearly the clinical evidence indicates that it is not constitutional. I suspect that Wood's argument has its only validity when he avoids statements about the etiology of homosexuality and focuses upon the appropriate attitudes society, and Christians in particular, ought to have toward it. In a tone that reminds one of the pulpit, he writes: "If we discriminate against the homosexual, if we legislate against him, if we force him to wear the mask of hypocrisy, if we doom him to lonely living, if we fail to love him, then we are doing the same thing to our Christ. If we love the homosexual, if we try to help him adjust to himself, if we attempt to model our every action after the Master's, then, truly, we do it unto Christ. ''19 To this I say Hurrah! It is unfortunate that Wood finds it necessary to ascribe the creation of homosexuality to God in order to justify humane and Christian treatment of the homosexual. To be logically consistent, this means that we would have to say that God created people who are constitutionally adulterers for us to be able to love and accept the adulterer. I, for one, am not willing to ascribe to God the misuses of His universe in order to justify the extension of the Christian fellowship to the misusers.
The psychoanalytical approach I find the psychoanalytical approach the first significant ray of light upon the subject. While many psychoanalytically oriented therapists have held that homosexuality is incurable, there has been a major shift in the thinking of many analysts. Unfortunately, popular opinion has not caught up with psychiatric development. The late Edmund Bergler makes "the positive statement that homosexuality has an excellent prognosis in psychiatric-psychoanalytic treatment of one or two year's duration, with a minimum of three appointments each week--provided the patient really ~:ishes to change. ''2~ In comparison with many other psychiatric difficulties, this course of therapy may be considered relatively short. But the important clause in his statement concerns the patient's own desire for change. He refers primarily to the unconscious and not the conscious desire. The homosexual personality orientation being what it is, the conscious and unconscious desires may rarely coincide. The assumption is that the homosexual is sick. "Homosexuality is neither a biologically determined destiny nor incomprehensible ill luck.
Homosexuality and Love
z3
It is an unfavorable unconscious solution of a conflict that faces every child. ''21 Homosexuality is a perverse or unhelpful solution to one problem in living. But "the psychiatric use of perversion should be differentiated from the popular; the latter includes a moral connotation, while psychiatrically perversion denotes infantile sex encountered in an adult, and leading to orgasm. In short, a disease. ''== It has been argued that only some homosexuals are sick, as some heterosexuals are sick. But the psychoanalytic approach holds that "there also exist healthy heterosexuals, and there are no healthy homosexuals. The entire personality structure of the homosexual is pervaded by the unconscious wish to suffer; this wish is gratified by self-created trouble-making. ''2a It causes more discomfort than it creates satisfactions; therefore it is an illness. Turning to the personality structure of the homosexual, we find that it can be characterized by a mixture of six elements: "~) masochistic provocation and injustice-collecting; 2) defensive malice; 3) flippancy covering depression and guilt; 4) hypernarcissism and hypersuperciliousness; 5) refusal to acknowledge accepted standards in non-sexual matters, on the assumption that the right to cut moral corners is due homosexuals as compensation for their 'suffering'; and, 6) general unreliability, also of a more or less psychopathic nature. The most interesting feature of this sextet of traits is its universality. Regardless of the level of intelligence, culture, background, or education, all homosexuals possess it. ''=~ Among the analytic approaches to homosexuality there are a number of theories as to its psychogenesis. W e shall look at two. The first, put forth by Dr. Clifford Allen, holds that while all children pass through a homosexual phase in their psychosexual development, some never have the psychic ability to grow beyond it to a heterosexual maturity. The individual is retarded by any one of a large number of possible traumatic events. The homosexuality of the individual is a sign of his immaturity; the illness is most closely related to the cause. "By analogy with the monkeys and apes homosexuality is immaturity and the adult ape drops it because he finds copulation with the female more enjoyable. Since man has evolved from the apes, it is not surprising if we find that he retains some residue of his development. ''=~ The homosexual person, like the homosexual ape, is unable to find gratification in heterosexual copulation because of his psychological immaturity. 24
Journal of Religion and Health
The second analytical approach is to be found in the extensive writings on the subject by Dr. Bergler. He explains the genesis of homosexuality in this way: "At the crossroads of weaning time, when it was necessary to accept or not to accept the loss of the breast (bottle), the future homosexual did not resort to the usual way out of the universal dilemma; he did not disparage the feminine nutritional apparatus via 'unconscious repetition compulsion.' The male infant who later becomes a heterosexual adult 'discovers' in his penis a substitute for the withdrawn breast, and narcissism is triumphant. Actively repeating passively endured experiences, the boy--once the passive recipient of milk-becomes the active bestower of urine (later sperm); in intercourse, as an adult, he plays the role of 'giving mother,' reducing the woman to the passive image of himself as a baby. The future homosexual goes along for part of the way. He, too, identifies breast and penis. But his narcissistic wound is deeper, and inwardly, as a result, he dissociates himself from the disappointing sex--woman. In his adult sexual life, the homosexual pursues the 'reduplication of his own defense mechanism' --man's penis (unconsciously, his own). ''26 This development, the infant separation from the breast, takes place just prior to the onset of the homosexual period in the normal development of a child. It indicates the fact that the homosexual-to-be enters this period with the predisposition to remain at this level in his psychosexual development. The anxiety caused by the separation from the breast has caused him to focus much of his affiliational needs upon himself. "A male homosexual is a person who predominantly uses the unconsciously based defense mechanism of man-man relationship to escape his repressed masochistic attachment to the mother, and who predominantly exhibits the mechanism of injustice-collecting in his personality. These two elements are invariably connected in the homosexual. ''27 Having noted the difference in the two approaches within the analytic system of understanding the homosexual, we may unite them on the basis that they merge into one stream, making no significant difference in the treatment of the individual. The question remains as to how the homosexual moves from his own preoccupation with his penis to the homosexual relationship with another person. Having become narcissistically involved, the homosexual infant (we can call him that because of the predisposition that has already influenced his psychological make-up) becomes schizoid in his relationship to reality. Mother's
Homosexuality and Love
25
breast, which constituted the warm supply of affection and food, had been symbolic of the "not-me" to the infant. Now, having been hurt by the "not-me," he withdraws in order to minimize the anxiety he will experience. In the withdrawal into a primarily ego-centered existenee, he begins to construct symbols that insure the maintenance of his self-esteem. What had been lost, mother's breast, is now symbolized by his own body. "In homosexuality not only does the patient identify himself with the mother (and turns away from the father) in most eases, but it is not generally realized that he tends to regard other men as symbolizing a mother in some manner. Various parts of the mother become metamorphosed into the male. Thus the breast becomes equated with the penis, and this explains the frequent fellatio (use of the mouth). Similarly the buttocks become equated with the breasts and is why some men are attracted to tight trousers because the buttocks under the cloth look like a woman's breasts. The vagina becomes symbolized by the anus or mouth. Anal intercourse is only unconscious incestuous behavior, although it has undergone considerable transformation. ''2s At this point a word must be said about lesbianism, i. e., female homosexuality. "The genesis of female homosexuality is identical with that of male homosexuality: an unsolved masochistic conflict with the mother of earliest infancy. ''2D One of the main differences from male homosexuality is that the lesbian cannot project her hatred of the mother who removed the breast upon a psychic substitute figure with only symbolic physical similarities. Instead, she must deal with her aggresive feelings by displacement. She must repress the threatening feelings and create a pseudo-love. Thus she denies her hatred by affirming her love for the mother substitute: the other lesbian. Both male and female homosexuals have deep aggressive feelings with which they must constantly deal. The male disparages the sexuality of the woman and the female proclaims a love for the substitute mother figure. Bergler again: "For these sick people there is no such thing as a beloved parent or relative, . . . these patients are filled with a savage unconscious defensive hatred against the latter, a hatred that is in direct proportion to the patient's wild self-damaging tendency. ''3~ So it is, because the human psyche does not freely admit to hatred of one's parents, that the homosexual must punish both the other homosexual and himself. He unconsciously places himself in the position of insuring punishment for his behavior. He may choose a detective for a homoz6
Journal of Religion and Health
sexual approach, guaranteeing his arrest and legal punishment. Or, he may choose to approach a man twice his size who needs to protect himself from his own unconscious homosexual urges to the point of physically assaulting the homosexual. A pattern of this type of periodic punishment is often found within the lives of homosexuals; it fits into the masochistic elements of their personality. When one of the homosexuals I have worked with failed at many attempts to get others to punish him, in desperation he turned his anger against himself and tried to commit suicide. In summary, the following discoveries have been made about the homosexual: i) Homosexuality is a product of a psyehie maladjustment that takes place in the pre-oedipal period of the infant, z) The predominant characteristics of the homosexual's personality include nareissism, displacement, aggression, and repression. 3) The homosexual ean be cured through the psyehotherapeutie process under the condition that he desires to be cured. Evaluation
We agreed at the beginning of this inquiry that we would use Erich Fromm's four characteristics of love as a measure of the relationship of homosexuality to love. They were: i) care, 2) responsibility, 3) respect, and 4) knowledge. If the homosexual's relationships can be characterized by these qualities, we will admit to their being a legitimate expression of love. The plight of the homosexual in society has always been acute. Although there were periodic official remissions of punishment for homosexual offenders, history generally records a great deal of persecution. D. S. Bailey cites three possible explanations for the heterosexual's disapproval and punishment of the homosexual?1 First, the homosexual stands as a reminder to the heterosexual of his own homosexual tendencies. On a deeper level, it may be said that he is reminded of the original anxiety-producing experience in his own weaning process during the pre-oedipal period. Identifying with the homosexual's failure to make a more satisfying adjustment to this experience, he re-experiences some of the original anxiety. The difference is that the adult heterosexual is able to express his aggressions more openly than when he was an infant. Therefore, he has tended to displace much of his anger toward his own mother upon the homosexual. The death sentence Homosexuality and Love
27
that has been the occasional penalty for homosexuality is a perfect symbolization of the desire to destroy the powerful mother whose actions caused the lowering of the child's self-esteem and thereby raised his anxiety. Secondly, it has been noted that the male homosexual has always been the object of more of the heterosexual's anger than has the lesbian. Even in contemporary society, it is far more permissible for two women to "set up housekeeping together in order to save money" than it is for two males. If the latter enter into a similar relationship, there is almost certain to be suggestion of homosexuality and some alienation from the community. In the same section, Bailey ties this up with the primitive notion that the sperm is an entity unto itself, without need of the woman for reproduction except as a nest in which the sperm can be hatched. This primitive notion depends upon very limited knowledge of the human reproductive system and accounts for much of the comparative position of the male and female in many prescientific civilizations. The theory is that this primitive notion stressing the wastefulness of the sperm lives on within the unconscious of the race. It did not matter what form of sexual expression a woman chose, because there was no "waste." The homosexual male, however, "wasted" his sperm. For this misuse of that to which the state often claimed the right (his reproductive capacities), and religionists attributed to the "natural order" ordained by God, the homosexual was punished. Thirdly, the case is made for the displacement of the heterosexual's own guilt feelings of his heterosexual failures. The homosexual becomes the sacrificial goat. Bailey writes: "In any society the extent of homosexual practice and perversion is always one of the more striking indications of general corruption and defect in sexual life. Thus the so-called 'problem of homosexuality' which confronts us today is really a problem arising from the decay of moral standards and the abandonment of moral responsibility in the field of heterosexual relations both, in their turn, the result of false or imperfect conceptions of the nature of sex, and of ignorance or rejection of the will of God for man and woman. ''32 Although Bailey fails to corroborate this point with a convincing argument, it does suggest that, were heterosexual relationships better understood and more openly entered into, there would likely be less trauma connected with the weaning process. The mother who weans the child with a continued love, tenderness, and z8
Journal o~ Religion and Health
care is not as likely to produce anxiety within the child as one who, because of her own emotional and sexual involvements, weans simply on the basis of satisfaction of her own needs. If the trauma with the weaning process were thereby reduced, it would seem to follow that homosexuality might also be reduced. W e sense our own involvement in the unsatisfactory resolution of the weaning process. Therefore, rather than admit the anxiety of involvement in a failure in relationships, we displace the "blame" upon the homosexual. From the homosexual viewpoint, the society is repeating the deprivation that he experienced in childhood. "Superficially, the combination of active and passive homosexuals constitutes an imitation of the husband-wife relationship. On the unconscious level, however, it is a re-enactment of the baby-mother situation. The active homosexual enacts the role of the mother, and the passive repeats the role of the baby. ''.8 The society that seeks to prevent the homosexual from his activity prevents him from the satisfaction of this type of motherbaby relationship. No wonder he, like the infant he is on a psychic level, reacts with aggression. His claims upon society, from the infantile viewpoint, are justified. W h y has society deprived him of satisfactions as basic to his "nature" as a baby's need for the mother's breast? H o w is it that the heterosexual can commit what he, on an unconscious level, recognizes as symbolic incest? And the list of grievances, characterized as the homosexual's penchant for grievance-collecting, grows. It seems evident that the relation between society and the homosexual is primarily characterized by frustration and aggression. Care, responsibility, respect, and knowledge are lost in the frenzy of charge and countercharge. Neither has taken the opportunity to understand why his feelings toward the other are frustrated. The homosexual does not need punishment. As we have seen, this may just fit into the pattern of his sickness. Rather, he needs treatment. Instead of jails, he needs help to find psychiatric treatment. There are, of course, some homosexuals who, superficially, do not meet the basic qualification for treatment: the desire to be cured. But in the context in which we are now speaking of homosexuality, the lack of desire itself is an evidence of sickness. If someone were afflicted by poor eyesight but spurned glasses because he was deriving too much pleasure from his poor eyesight, we might consider him to be emotionally troubled. This is also the case with the homosexual. The early goal of treatHomosexuality and Love
29
ment might well be a more realistic outlook on himself and society. This might lead into treatment for his homosexuality. Until then, society cannot expect love from the homosexual. By the very nature of his illness, he is unable to give love. But society, not as sick as he, we may hope, can show its love by providing adequate care, upon the assumption that it can respect the homosexual as a child of God as we come to know more about the affliction of his illness. It is sometimes said that the homosexual has a truly loving relationship with another homosexual. Homosexual "marriages" are sometimes established with all of the warmth and fervor of any heterosexual marriage. However, as has been noted above, there are a great many pressures against their success. The negative forces most often cited by those proponents of the constitutional view of homosexuality generally are external pressure. They fall into the homosexual's pattern of masochistic grievance-collecting. Not recognizing the nature of homosexual pathology, these people often miss the internal pressures that doom most homosexual marriages. W e have noted above that the physical parts of the homosexual partner take on symbolic significance relating to the mother. In no way are they unconsciously experienced as belonging to the partner. While there may be superficial elements of care and knowledge in the relationship, they remain only superficial. The homosexual is, in fact, too submerged in his own narcissistic preoccupations to be able to reach out in love. He can only reach out to fulfill his own infantile needs. In no significant sense can it be said that he knows who his partner is as a separate person. Rather, he reduces the partner to an object used for his own fantasy fulfillment. It is not surprising that most homosexual "marriages" are short lived. The outside pressures force the two people toward each other. However, the homosexual can only accept a limited amount of closeness lest his fantasy-symbolization be exposed and crushed by reality. Therefore, forced closer together than their pathology will permit, they resort to arguments, competitive outside relationships, and injusticecollecting to maintain distance from one another. One of the homosexuals I have known repeatedly provoked his "husband" whenever he became too close. As a result, he got his nose broken and his front teeth knocked out. In no sense is this a "sacramental" unity resulting in the deepest communion of two personalities. 3~
Journal of Religion and Health
Lesbian "marriages" have more of a chance to succeed than have male homosexual "marriages." This is largely because of two factors. First, the pressures from society are not as great. Secondly, and most important, the dynamic of the lesbian differs to a sufficient degree to make it possible for more "harmony" to exist within the relationship. Remembering that the lesbian's central psychodynamic is a denial of her hatred for her mother by an over-compensatory love, the lesbian cannot face negativity. She must protest a love for her partner. Hostilities that were allowed to come too close to consciousness would endanger the repression of her tremendous hostility toward her mother. While she, too, cannot get too close to her partner for fear that the unconscious symbolization will be pierced, she cannot allow too much distance lest she get enough perspective to recognize her hostilities. She, too, cannot deal with her partner as a personality. She must keep her in the realm of impersonal, or rather depersonalizing, symbolization. In the midst of their mutual affirmations of love is the fear of losing the precarious psychic balance and moving too far one way or the other. Finally we turn to the homosexual's capacity for self-love. At first glance, the homosexual's problem would seem to be that he loves himself too much. In the pre-oedipal period he transferred his affiliational needs toward himself, from the mother's breast to his penis. There he remains, unable to break out of his narcissistic involvement. He "loves" himself so much that he cannot extend his affiliations to anyone else who may have needs of his own. In reality, the homosexual does not love himself. He has withdrawn into himself not because of love, but because of the inability to face anxiety in interpersonal relations. His self-esteem is so low that it cannot stand the threat posed by other people. He cannot fulfill the characteristic of self-respect that is found in all mature loving relationships. Dr. M. Boss contends that "fear is the ontologie antithesis of love. ''3~ This is certainly true of the homosexual. Great is his fear and little is his capacity to love. Summary
The following points have been made in this paper and are offered as preliminary conclusions: z) Homosexuality is condemned by the Bible only as it detracts from the purpose of man's creation--to love God and neighbor and self. The Homosexuality and Love
3z
story of Sodom and G o m o r r a h cannot be taken as proof of God's condemnation of homosexuality. 2) While there m a y be constitutional and existential factors to be considered, homosexuality seems to be best explained and treated w h e n it is held to be a psychological illness. It is characterized b y narcissistic and schizoid fantasy with an aggressive orientation toward others. 3) As an illness, homosexuality m a y have interpersonal consequences that are immoral but, in itself, it is as moral in its relation to its victim as is any other disease. 4) A mature love, characterized b y care, responsibility, respect, and knowledge, is precluded in the homosexual's relationships b y the nature of his illness. It is possible, however, for the heterosexual to become more accepting and loving of the homosexual once he faces the dynamics behind his o w n feelings. REFERENCES i. Fromm, Erich, The Art of Loving. New York, Harper, i956. 3. Ibid., p. zS. 4. Ibid., p. 29. 5. Bailey, Derrick S., Homosexuality a~d the Western Christian Tradition. London and New York, Longmans Green, x955. 6. Ibid., p. 5. 7. Ibid., p. 8. 8. Ibid., p. i55. 9. Ibid., p. i58. to. Cole, William Graham, Sex and Love in the Bible. New York, Association Press, 1959, p. 36o. ix. Ibid., pp. 361-36z. iz. Wood, Robert W., Christ and the Homosexual. New York, Vantage Press, 196o. 13. Ibid., p. I46. x4. Ibid., pp.x63-ITO. 15. E.g., Genesis z:24. i6. Wood, op. cir., p. 81. x7. Ibid., p. 8i. i8. Berg, Charles, and Allen, Clifford E., The Problem of Homosexuality. New York, Citadel Press, i958, pp. 76-99. 19. Wood, op. tit., p. i24. zo. Bergler, Edmund, Homosexuality: Disease or Way of Life. New York, Hill & Wang, I956, p. 188. 2i. Ibid.,p. 3I. zz. Ibid.,p.z 7. 23. lbid.,p. 9. z4. Ibid.,p. 49. 25. Berg and Allen, op. cir., p. zo. z6. Bergler, op. cit., pp. 17z-I73. z 7. Ibid., p. 87. z8. Berg and Allen, op. tit., p. 49. z9. Bergler, op. cit., p. 263. 3o. Ibid., p. i99. 3 I. Bailey, op. cir., pp. i6i-i67. 3z. Ibid., p. x66. 33. Bergler, op. cir. p. 69. 34. Boss, M., Meaning and Content of Sexual Perversions. New York, Grune & Stratton, x949, p. 92. z. Ibid., pp. z6-29.
3z
Journal of R e l i g i o n and H e a l t h
E. B U X B A U M
Homosexuality and Love SOME TIME AGO a community pastor approached me, asking in an almost desperate tone of voice, "What should the Christian approach be to homosexuality?" I sat with growing discomfort as he presented his problem to me. The church organist had been arrested by a detective on a charge of sodomy. While the first reaction of the congregation had been to dismiss him from his position, the pastor had prevailed upon the majority of the ruling elders to support him in his time of need. Christian love and acceptance were stressed in a letter to the whole congregation. Two elders resigned and one other family left the church in "righteous" indignation. But, on the whole, the pastor was convinced that the congregation had been helped to grow significantly in the understanding and living of their faith. As the church considered this matter, there was little or no doubt in the pastor's mind as to what was "the Christian approach." The problem arose after the immediate struggle. Now the organist was back at work and under the care of a somewhat pessimistic psychiatrist. Things were going well in the church, except for one thing: the organist was happy with his homosexuality! N o w that it was publicly known, he felt quite free to talk about it as a "preferred way of life." He often remarked to the pastor that what he would really like was a "few days of loving." The pastor, in turn, was generally his best nondirective self. But it had finally gotten to him. He found himself becoming quite angry. Even Christian love and acceptance seemed to have been stretched too far. It was at this point that he raised the question with me. Out of this encounter, this paper has grown. I had been able to be of very little help to the pastor. Although I had talked with a number of homosexuals in my work, I had not taken the opportunity, as a hospital chaplain, to think through their dynamics or the Christian faith as it is particularly related to their problems. I had heard many of the clich6s of the heterosexual world: "You can never help a homosexual;" "Most psychiatrists won't attempt to treat homosexuals;" "The only thing you can do for them is make them happy with their way of
Homosexuality and Love
i7
life;" and "Everybody has something of the homosexual within his make-up; it is just that some have much more than others." With these as my background, I found myself mouthing things I knew I had no real information about. My attempt to find out more about homosexuality has taken two slightly different paths. First, I turned to the written materials on homosexuality and on its relation to the Christian faith. Secondly, I sought a homosexual patient at the hospital with whom I entered into a psyehotherapeutie relationship. I had enough time with this patient to give me some "clues," some indications, as to how his case fitted into the several theories about homosexuality. Since then, work with several other homosexuals has confirmed my experience with him. It is largely due to these relationships that my thinking has taken the direction that it has.
A "working definition of Christian love It seems reasonable to begin our thinking about the relation between homosexuality and Christian love by arriving at a definition of Christian love. But it is evident that there are many definitions of love, and many different understandings of Christian love. I am unwilling to accept any division between love and Christian love. If we are to talk sense, we must remain consistent in our use of language. They are not two different entities. Rather, the second is just an extension of the first. I shall attempt to explain what I mean. In his book The Art of Loving, 1 Erich Fromm points out that, while there are many forms of love, there are four basic characteristics in all of these forms. They are: I) care, 2) responsibility, 3) respect and 4) knowledge? In the loving relationship, these four characteristics are always in operation. Love, then, is not something that one either has or has not. It is not a thing that we obtain or have given to us. Rather it is a quality of relationship. Any relationship that displays these four qualities at all levels may be said to be love or a loving relationship. It is understood as an adjective, not a noun. It must also be understood that the relationship must include all four qualities in order to fit the definition of love. Fromm has pointed out that each needs the other to be truly characterized as love. For example, he writes: "Responsibility could easily deteriorate into domination and possessiveness, were it not for a third component of love, respect. ''a
18
Journal of Religion and Health
Again: "To respect a person is not possible without knowing him; care and responsibility would be blind if they were not guided by knowledge. Knowledge would be empty if it were not motivated by concern. ''~ When we apply the prefix "Christian" to love, we are not talking about another characteristic or kind of love. W e are simply acknowledging the Source of the relationship. With or without the prefix, we are speaking about the same quality of relationship. But with the addit.ion of the word "Christian" we are stating that the relationship we have been describing is rooted ontologieally in, and derives its power from, God. This does not change the quality of the relationship; it simply places it within its proper context. On the other hand, to fail to acknowledge the Source of love cannot negate the Source; it means we simply fail to understand it fully. For our purposes, we will be concerned with the quality of the relationships between the homosexual and the heterosexual, between homosexuals themselves, and the psychic relationship of the individual homosexual with himself. Our question will be: To what extent is it possible for the homosexual to love? But before we proceed to this, we need to set aside one problem that might otherwise plague us. Sodom and Gomorrah: The Bible
It has long been assumed that the Bible itself provided the guide by which the Christian could measure and deal with homosexuality. In most instances, those who stood in condemnation of homosexuality called upon the story of Sodom and Gomorrah to prove that God Himself had made his judgment clear. Certainly, if God so clearly punished the people of these two ancient cities for homosexuality, no one could doubt that they were fulfilling God's will by supporting civil punishment for similar offenses. So clear was the relationship that one of the homosexual acts took upon itself the name of the city: sodomy. But let us examine this. I would refer you to the work so clearly laid out by D. S. Bailey in his book Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition. 5 Bailey's biblical erudition speaks for itself. He examines the scriptures carefully and writes: "The story does not in the least demand the assumption that the sin of Sodom was sexual, let alone homosexual--indeed, there is no evidence to show that vice of the latter kind was prevalent there. ''6 If he is correct, then how is it that mankind has Homosexuality and Love
~9
made this association these many centuries? To this he answers: "It is clear that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was an historical event, and that it was due to natural and not supernatural causes. The tradition that a Divine judgment fell upon the cities because of their wickedness may have been nothing more than a superstitious inference from the awful character of the disaster. If it had any foundation in fact, we still know nothing of the sin for which it was believed that they had been punished; there is no reason to suppose that it was sexual --still less, that it was homosexual.''7 His scholarly study points out the confusion in the translation process and suggests that this has been a prime cause of the misunderstanding. The result of Bailey's incisive examination is that "it is no longer permissible to take refuge in the contention that God himself pronounced these acts 'detestible and abominable' above every other sexual sin, nor to explain natural catastrophes and human disasters as his vengeance upon those who indulge in them. ''8 If homosexuality is condemned, it must be condemned on other grounds. If the homosexual is punished, we cannot transfer the causal justification for the punishment onto God. If he is to be accepted, the form of his sexual expression valued, it is not impeded by the biblical witness. Historically speaking, "both the Bible and the Roman law encouraged a severe treatment of sodomy, but there was also a mitigating influence, partly theological and partly ecclesiastical in character, which has usually been overlooked. Justinian, in his edicts, had insisted that homosexual acts were sins as well as crimes, and that the penalties of the secular law were only to be invoked against the obdurate and the unrepentant. ''~ It cannot be justly held that the church has always persecuted the homosexual. Actually, the homosexual has often been saved from more serious punishment only by the forgiving influence of the church. Those who would turn to the passages in the N e w Testament that are often cited as pronouncing the judgment of God upon the homosexual must remember that these were written within the context of the misunderstanding of the Sodom and Gomorrah story. Moreover, on the whole, "the N e w Testament is . . . surprisingly silent on the subject of homosexuality--surprisingly, because the problem was so widespread in the Graeco-Roman world. Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality, possibly because he never encountered it in the
zo
Journal of Religion and Health
remote province of Palestine whose life was so dominated by Jewish law and custom. The apostle Paul referred to the practice scathingly at several points. ''1~ But "it is significant that . . . the apostle traced homosexuality to idolatry, to the failure to know God aright. A false understanding of God leads to a distorted understanding of one's self and his proper role. ''lz The point is that the sin lay not in being a homosexual, but in the misuse of our potential. It may be likened to the fact that sex itself is not a sin; but the misuse of sex is. This point will be further clarified later in our discussion. The constitutional approach As we read the literature on homosexuality, it divides into two main approaches: constitutional and psychoanalytic. W e shall consider each of these approaches in an attempt to understand the nature of homosexuality and its relation to love. Perhaps one of the most vivid polemics for the constitutional approach comes from a Congregational minister, Robert Wood. In his book, Christ and the Homosexual, TM Wood makes an impassioned plea for acceptance of the homosexual and his homosexuality. In his pastoral experience with homosexuals he states that "the fundamental lesson to be learned in ministering to them is that they wish to be loved and treated like anyone else and accepted on equal terms, m3 Painting a vivid picture of the homosexual society and its fears and frustrations, Wood contends that since the homosexual is born with his homosexuality, he needs to be accepted for what he can in no wise avoid being. The morality of homosexuality, in Wood's view, is to be found in three conditions: i) "Homosexuality is a God-created way of protecting the human race on this planet from the suicide of over-population," 2) it makes "available opportunities for love for some who are unable to find them in heterosexual relations, a love which can be truly sacramental," and 3) it "provides an outlet for the expression of the human personality for those who cannot express themselves fully within heterosexuality.T M The assumption is that these are part of the correct order of creation, deriving their reality from God. If we grant this assumption, then his argument is very strong. The weaknesses of Wood's position are in his assumptions. There seems to be very good biblical witness to the two-sex nature of manHomosexuality and Love
2x
kind. 15 There seems to be none at all for the assumption that God created some people to be homosexual. In the application of the assumptions, we find even less acceptability. In this age, when there seems to be great concern about the problem of overpopulation, Wood appeals to some popular anxieties. However, there are more satisfactory ways of preventing overpopulation than homosexuality. Heterosexual expression serves many purposes in addition to procreation. To turn to homosexuality in an attempt to prevent overpopulation seems to me to be ridiculous. The second point assumes that the homosexual may participate in a loving relationship. While Wood points to a few homosexual "couples" who establish permanent relationships, he himself states that "the gay [homosexual] society is a promiscuous society.''1~ Certainly the widespread unfaithfulness among homosexuals indicates that the elements of care and responsibility are often missing. This cannot be refuted by pointing to heterosexual unfaithfulness because, despite Kinsey, the incidence of unfaithfulness is but a small fraction of what it is among homosexuals. Nor is it inherent in heterosexuality. Wood becomes very idealistic when he writes of a homosexual marriage: "If the love of the two is strong enough to overcome everything else, then the marriage will succeed and they can spend the next twenty or forty years together 'till death do us part.' ,,x7 By the "everything else" that needs to be overcome he means the social pressure against this type of "marriage," the demands of an essentially promiscuous society, the need to have a bond greater than that provided by sex alone, the easy dissolvability of the homosexual relationship, etc. Any degree of permanence within the relationship must find its genesis among all of these negative forces! It is not likely that this is a frequent possibility. The final basis that Wood mentions relies upon the assumption that if the homosexual does not have homosexual relationships there can be no other outlet for his creative personality. It assumes, in short, that every homosexual must remain a homosexual and never seek to find a cure. If homosexuality is constitutional, then nothing can be done about it! Like the color of one's skin, once the genes have determined its structure, one can only learn to live with it. This is an assumption that seems not to hold under the scrutiny of clinical experience. For example, Dr. Clifford Allen provides clinical evidence of at least eighteen cases in which he modesdy claims to have attained an "apparent cure. ''x8 z2
Journal of Religion and Health
H o w can this be possible if homosexuality is constitutional? Clearly the clinical evidence indicates that it is not constitutional. I suspect that Wood's argument has its only validity when he avoids statements about the etiology of homosexuality and focuses upon the appropriate attitudes society, and Christians in particular, ought to have toward it. In a tone that reminds one of the pulpit, he writes: "If we discriminate against the homosexual, if we legislate against him, if we force him to wear the mask of hypocrisy, if we doom him to lonely living, if we fail to love him, then we are doing the same thing to our Christ. If we love the homosexual, if we try to help him adjust to himself, if we attempt to model our every action after the Master's, then, truly, we do it unto Christ. ''19 To this I say Hurrah! It is unfortunate that Wood finds it necessary to ascribe the creation of homosexuality to God in order to justify humane and Christian treatment of the homosexual. To be logically consistent, this means that we would have to say that God created people who are constitutionally adulterers for us to be able to love and accept the adulterer. I, for one, am not willing to ascribe to God the misuses of His universe in order to justify the extension of the Christian fellowship to the misusers.
The psychoanalytical approach I find the psychoanalytical approach the first significant ray of light upon the subject. While many psychoanalytically oriented therapists have held that homosexuality is incurable, there has been a major shift in the thinking of many analysts. Unfortunately, popular opinion has not caught up with psychiatric development. The late Edmund Bergler makes "the positive statement that homosexuality has an excellent prognosis in psychiatric-psychoanalytic treatment of one or two year's duration, with a minimum of three appointments each week--provided the patient really ~:ishes to change. ''2~ In comparison with many other psychiatric difficulties, this course of therapy may be considered relatively short. But the important clause in his statement concerns the patient's own desire for change. He refers primarily to the unconscious and not the conscious desire. The homosexual personality orientation being what it is, the conscious and unconscious desires may rarely coincide. The assumption is that the homosexual is sick. "Homosexuality is neither a biologically determined destiny nor incomprehensible ill luck.
Homosexuality and Love
z3
It is an unfavorable unconscious solution of a conflict that faces every child. ''21 Homosexuality is a perverse or unhelpful solution to one problem in living. But "the psychiatric use of perversion should be differentiated from the popular; the latter includes a moral connotation, while psychiatrically perversion denotes infantile sex encountered in an adult, and leading to orgasm. In short, a disease. ''== It has been argued that only some homosexuals are sick, as some heterosexuals are sick. But the psychoanalytic approach holds that "there also exist healthy heterosexuals, and there are no healthy homosexuals. The entire personality structure of the homosexual is pervaded by the unconscious wish to suffer; this wish is gratified by self-created trouble-making. ''2a It causes more discomfort than it creates satisfactions; therefore it is an illness. Turning to the personality structure of the homosexual, we find that it can be characterized by a mixture of six elements: "~) masochistic provocation and injustice-collecting; 2) defensive malice; 3) flippancy covering depression and guilt; 4) hypernarcissism and hypersuperciliousness; 5) refusal to acknowledge accepted standards in non-sexual matters, on the assumption that the right to cut moral corners is due homosexuals as compensation for their 'suffering'; and, 6) general unreliability, also of a more or less psychopathic nature. The most interesting feature of this sextet of traits is its universality. Regardless of the level of intelligence, culture, background, or education, all homosexuals possess it. ''=~ Among the analytic approaches to homosexuality there are a number of theories as to its psychogenesis. W e shall look at two. The first, put forth by Dr. Clifford Allen, holds that while all children pass through a homosexual phase in their psychosexual development, some never have the psychic ability to grow beyond it to a heterosexual maturity. The individual is retarded by any one of a large number of possible traumatic events. The homosexuality of the individual is a sign of his immaturity; the illness is most closely related to the cause. "By analogy with the monkeys and apes homosexuality is immaturity and the adult ape drops it because he finds copulation with the female more enjoyable. Since man has evolved from the apes, it is not surprising if we find that he retains some residue of his development. ''=~ The homosexual person, like the homosexual ape, is unable to find gratification in heterosexual copulation because of his psychological immaturity. 24
Journal of Religion and Health
The second analytical approach is to be found in the extensive writings on the subject by Dr. Bergler. He explains the genesis of homosexuality in this way: "At the crossroads of weaning time, when it was necessary to accept or not to accept the loss of the breast (bottle), the future homosexual did not resort to the usual way out of the universal dilemma; he did not disparage the feminine nutritional apparatus via 'unconscious repetition compulsion.' The male infant who later becomes a heterosexual adult 'discovers' in his penis a substitute for the withdrawn breast, and narcissism is triumphant. Actively repeating passively endured experiences, the boy--once the passive recipient of milk-becomes the active bestower of urine (later sperm); in intercourse, as an adult, he plays the role of 'giving mother,' reducing the woman to the passive image of himself as a baby. The future homosexual goes along for part of the way. He, too, identifies breast and penis. But his narcissistic wound is deeper, and inwardly, as a result, he dissociates himself from the disappointing sex--woman. In his adult sexual life, the homosexual pursues the 'reduplication of his own defense mechanism' --man's penis (unconsciously, his own). ''26 This development, the infant separation from the breast, takes place just prior to the onset of the homosexual period in the normal development of a child. It indicates the fact that the homosexual-to-be enters this period with the predisposition to remain at this level in his psychosexual development. The anxiety caused by the separation from the breast has caused him to focus much of his affiliational needs upon himself. "A male homosexual is a person who predominantly uses the unconsciously based defense mechanism of man-man relationship to escape his repressed masochistic attachment to the mother, and who predominantly exhibits the mechanism of injustice-collecting in his personality. These two elements are invariably connected in the homosexual. ''27 Having noted the difference in the two approaches within the analytic system of understanding the homosexual, we may unite them on the basis that they merge into one stream, making no significant difference in the treatment of the individual. The question remains as to how the homosexual moves from his own preoccupation with his penis to the homosexual relationship with another person. Having become narcissistically involved, the homosexual infant (we can call him that because of the predisposition that has already influenced his psychological make-up) becomes schizoid in his relationship to reality. Mother's
Homosexuality and Love
25
breast, which constituted the warm supply of affection and food, had been symbolic of the "not-me" to the infant. Now, having been hurt by the "not-me," he withdraws in order to minimize the anxiety he will experience. In the withdrawal into a primarily ego-centered existenee, he begins to construct symbols that insure the maintenance of his self-esteem. What had been lost, mother's breast, is now symbolized by his own body. "In homosexuality not only does the patient identify himself with the mother (and turns away from the father) in most eases, but it is not generally realized that he tends to regard other men as symbolizing a mother in some manner. Various parts of the mother become metamorphosed into the male. Thus the breast becomes equated with the penis, and this explains the frequent fellatio (use of the mouth). Similarly the buttocks become equated with the breasts and is why some men are attracted to tight trousers because the buttocks under the cloth look like a woman's breasts. The vagina becomes symbolized by the anus or mouth. Anal intercourse is only unconscious incestuous behavior, although it has undergone considerable transformation. ''2s At this point a word must be said about lesbianism, i. e., female homosexuality. "The genesis of female homosexuality is identical with that of male homosexuality: an unsolved masochistic conflict with the mother of earliest infancy. ''2D One of the main differences from male homosexuality is that the lesbian cannot project her hatred of the mother who removed the breast upon a psychic substitute figure with only symbolic physical similarities. Instead, she must deal with her aggresive feelings by displacement. She must repress the threatening feelings and create a pseudo-love. Thus she denies her hatred by affirming her love for the mother substitute: the other lesbian. Both male and female homosexuals have deep aggressive feelings with which they must constantly deal. The male disparages the sexuality of the woman and the female proclaims a love for the substitute mother figure. Bergler again: "For these sick people there is no such thing as a beloved parent or relative, . . . these patients are filled with a savage unconscious defensive hatred against the latter, a hatred that is in direct proportion to the patient's wild self-damaging tendency. ''3~ So it is, because the human psyche does not freely admit to hatred of one's parents, that the homosexual must punish both the other homosexual and himself. He unconsciously places himself in the position of insuring punishment for his behavior. He may choose a detective for a homoz6
Journal of Religion and Health
sexual approach, guaranteeing his arrest and legal punishment. Or, he may choose to approach a man twice his size who needs to protect himself from his own unconscious homosexual urges to the point of physically assaulting the homosexual. A pattern of this type of periodic punishment is often found within the lives of homosexuals; it fits into the masochistic elements of their personality. When one of the homosexuals I have worked with failed at many attempts to get others to punish him, in desperation he turned his anger against himself and tried to commit suicide. In summary, the following discoveries have been made about the homosexual: i) Homosexuality is a product of a psyehie maladjustment that takes place in the pre-oedipal period of the infant, z) The predominant characteristics of the homosexual's personality include nareissism, displacement, aggression, and repression. 3) The homosexual ean be cured through the psyehotherapeutie process under the condition that he desires to be cured. Evaluation
We agreed at the beginning of this inquiry that we would use Erich Fromm's four characteristics of love as a measure of the relationship of homosexuality to love. They were: i) care, 2) responsibility, 3) respect, and 4) knowledge. If the homosexual's relationships can be characterized by these qualities, we will admit to their being a legitimate expression of love. The plight of the homosexual in society has always been acute. Although there were periodic official remissions of punishment for homosexual offenders, history generally records a great deal of persecution. D. S. Bailey cites three possible explanations for the heterosexual's disapproval and punishment of the homosexual?1 First, the homosexual stands as a reminder to the heterosexual of his own homosexual tendencies. On a deeper level, it may be said that he is reminded of the original anxiety-producing experience in his own weaning process during the pre-oedipal period. Identifying with the homosexual's failure to make a more satisfying adjustment to this experience, he re-experiences some of the original anxiety. The difference is that the adult heterosexual is able to express his aggressions more openly than when he was an infant. Therefore, he has tended to displace much of his anger toward his own mother upon the homosexual. The death sentence Homosexuality and Love
27
that has been the occasional penalty for homosexuality is a perfect symbolization of the desire to destroy the powerful mother whose actions caused the lowering of the child's self-esteem and thereby raised his anxiety. Secondly, it has been noted that the male homosexual has always been the object of more of the heterosexual's anger than has the lesbian. Even in contemporary society, it is far more permissible for two women to "set up housekeeping together in order to save money" than it is for two males. If the latter enter into a similar relationship, there is almost certain to be suggestion of homosexuality and some alienation from the community. In the same section, Bailey ties this up with the primitive notion that the sperm is an entity unto itself, without need of the woman for reproduction except as a nest in which the sperm can be hatched. This primitive notion depends upon very limited knowledge of the human reproductive system and accounts for much of the comparative position of the male and female in many prescientific civilizations. The theory is that this primitive notion stressing the wastefulness of the sperm lives on within the unconscious of the race. It did not matter what form of sexual expression a woman chose, because there was no "waste." The homosexual male, however, "wasted" his sperm. For this misuse of that to which the state often claimed the right (his reproductive capacities), and religionists attributed to the "natural order" ordained by God, the homosexual was punished. Thirdly, the case is made for the displacement of the heterosexual's own guilt feelings of his heterosexual failures. The homosexual becomes the sacrificial goat. Bailey writes: "In any society the extent of homosexual practice and perversion is always one of the more striking indications of general corruption and defect in sexual life. Thus the so-called 'problem of homosexuality' which confronts us today is really a problem arising from the decay of moral standards and the abandonment of moral responsibility in the field of heterosexual relations both, in their turn, the result of false or imperfect conceptions of the nature of sex, and of ignorance or rejection of the will of God for man and woman. ''32 Although Bailey fails to corroborate this point with a convincing argument, it does suggest that, were heterosexual relationships better understood and more openly entered into, there would likely be less trauma connected with the weaning process. The mother who weans the child with a continued love, tenderness, and z8
Journal o~ Religion and Health
care is not as likely to produce anxiety within the child as one who, because of her own emotional and sexual involvements, weans simply on the basis of satisfaction of her own needs. If the trauma with the weaning process were thereby reduced, it would seem to follow that homosexuality might also be reduced. W e sense our own involvement in the unsatisfactory resolution of the weaning process. Therefore, rather than admit the anxiety of involvement in a failure in relationships, we displace the "blame" upon the homosexual. From the homosexual viewpoint, the society is repeating the deprivation that he experienced in childhood. "Superficially, the combination of active and passive homosexuals constitutes an imitation of the husband-wife relationship. On the unconscious level, however, it is a re-enactment of the baby-mother situation. The active homosexual enacts the role of the mother, and the passive repeats the role of the baby. ''.8 The society that seeks to prevent the homosexual from his activity prevents him from the satisfaction of this type of motherbaby relationship. No wonder he, like the infant he is on a psychic level, reacts with aggression. His claims upon society, from the infantile viewpoint, are justified. W h y has society deprived him of satisfactions as basic to his "nature" as a baby's need for the mother's breast? H o w is it that the heterosexual can commit what he, on an unconscious level, recognizes as symbolic incest? And the list of grievances, characterized as the homosexual's penchant for grievance-collecting, grows. It seems evident that the relation between society and the homosexual is primarily characterized by frustration and aggression. Care, responsibility, respect, and knowledge are lost in the frenzy of charge and countercharge. Neither has taken the opportunity to understand why his feelings toward the other are frustrated. The homosexual does not need punishment. As we have seen, this may just fit into the pattern of his sickness. Rather, he needs treatment. Instead of jails, he needs help to find psychiatric treatment. There are, of course, some homosexuals who, superficially, do not meet the basic qualification for treatment: the desire to be cured. But in the context in which we are now speaking of homosexuality, the lack of desire itself is an evidence of sickness. If someone were afflicted by poor eyesight but spurned glasses because he was deriving too much pleasure from his poor eyesight, we might consider him to be emotionally troubled. This is also the case with the homosexual. The early goal of treatHomosexuality and Love
29
ment might well be a more realistic outlook on himself and society. This might lead into treatment for his homosexuality. Until then, society cannot expect love from the homosexual. By the very nature of his illness, he is unable to give love. But society, not as sick as he, we may hope, can show its love by providing adequate care, upon the assumption that it can respect the homosexual as a child of God as we come to know more about the affliction of his illness. It is sometimes said that the homosexual has a truly loving relationship with another homosexual. Homosexual "marriages" are sometimes established with all of the warmth and fervor of any heterosexual marriage. However, as has been noted above, there are a great many pressures against their success. The negative forces most often cited by those proponents of the constitutional view of homosexuality generally are external pressure. They fall into the homosexual's pattern of masochistic grievance-collecting. Not recognizing the nature of homosexual pathology, these people often miss the internal pressures that doom most homosexual marriages. W e have noted above that the physical parts of the homosexual partner take on symbolic significance relating to the mother. In no way are they unconsciously experienced as belonging to the partner. While there may be superficial elements of care and knowledge in the relationship, they remain only superficial. The homosexual is, in fact, too submerged in his own narcissistic preoccupations to be able to reach out in love. He can only reach out to fulfill his own infantile needs. In no significant sense can it be said that he knows who his partner is as a separate person. Rather, he reduces the partner to an object used for his own fantasy fulfillment. It is not surprising that most homosexual "marriages" are short lived. The outside pressures force the two people toward each other. However, the homosexual can only accept a limited amount of closeness lest his fantasy-symbolization be exposed and crushed by reality. Therefore, forced closer together than their pathology will permit, they resort to arguments, competitive outside relationships, and injusticecollecting to maintain distance from one another. One of the homosexuals I have known repeatedly provoked his "husband" whenever he became too close. As a result, he got his nose broken and his front teeth knocked out. In no sense is this a "sacramental" unity resulting in the deepest communion of two personalities. 3~
Journal of Religion and Health
Lesbian "marriages" have more of a chance to succeed than have male homosexual "marriages." This is largely because of two factors. First, the pressures from society are not as great. Secondly, and most important, the dynamic of the lesbian differs to a sufficient degree to make it possible for more "harmony" to exist within the relationship. Remembering that the lesbian's central psychodynamic is a denial of her hatred for her mother by an over-compensatory love, the lesbian cannot face negativity. She must protest a love for her partner. Hostilities that were allowed to come too close to consciousness would endanger the repression of her tremendous hostility toward her mother. While she, too, cannot get too close to her partner for fear that the unconscious symbolization will be pierced, she cannot allow too much distance lest she get enough perspective to recognize her hostilities. She, too, cannot deal with her partner as a personality. She must keep her in the realm of impersonal, or rather depersonalizing, symbolization. In the midst of their mutual affirmations of love is the fear of losing the precarious psychic balance and moving too far one way or the other. Finally we turn to the homosexual's capacity for self-love. At first glance, the homosexual's problem would seem to be that he loves himself too much. In the pre-oedipal period he transferred his affiliational needs toward himself, from the mother's breast to his penis. There he remains, unable to break out of his narcissistic involvement. He "loves" himself so much that he cannot extend his affiliations to anyone else who may have needs of his own. In reality, the homosexual does not love himself. He has withdrawn into himself not because of love, but because of the inability to face anxiety in interpersonal relations. His self-esteem is so low that it cannot stand the threat posed by other people. He cannot fulfill the characteristic of self-respect that is found in all mature loving relationships. Dr. M. Boss contends that "fear is the ontologie antithesis of love. ''3~ This is certainly true of the homosexual. Great is his fear and little is his capacity to love. Summary
The following points have been made in this paper and are offered as preliminary conclusions: z) Homosexuality is condemned by the Bible only as it detracts from the purpose of man's creation--to love God and neighbor and self. The Homosexuality and Love
3z
story of Sodom and G o m o r r a h cannot be taken as proof of God's condemnation of homosexuality. 2) While there m a y be constitutional and existential factors to be considered, homosexuality seems to be best explained and treated w h e n it is held to be a psychological illness. It is characterized b y narcissistic and schizoid fantasy with an aggressive orientation toward others. 3) As an illness, homosexuality m a y have interpersonal consequences that are immoral but, in itself, it is as moral in its relation to its victim as is any other disease. 4) A mature love, characterized b y care, responsibility, respect, and knowledge, is precluded in the homosexual's relationships b y the nature of his illness. It is possible, however, for the heterosexual to become more accepting and loving of the homosexual once he faces the dynamics behind his o w n feelings. REFERENCES i. Fromm, Erich, The Art of Loving. New York, Harper, i956. 3. Ibid., p. zS. 4. Ibid., p. 29. 5. Bailey, Derrick S., Homosexuality a~d the Western Christian Tradition. London and New York, Longmans Green, x955. 6. Ibid., p. 5. 7. Ibid., p. 8. 8. Ibid., p. i55. 9. Ibid., p. i58. to. Cole, William Graham, Sex and Love in the Bible. New York, Association Press, 1959, p. 36o. ix. Ibid., pp. 361-36z. iz. Wood, Robert W., Christ and the Homosexual. New York, Vantage Press, 196o. 13. Ibid., p. I46. x4. Ibid., pp.x63-ITO. 15. E.g., Genesis z:24. i6. Wood, op. cir., p. 81. x7. Ibid., p. 8i. i8. Berg, Charles, and Allen, Clifford E., The Problem of Homosexuality. New York, Citadel Press, i958, pp. 76-99. 19. Wood, op. tit., p. i24. zo. Bergler, Edmund, Homosexuality: Disease or Way of Life. New York, Hill & Wang, I956, p. 188. 2i. Ibid.,p. 3I. zz. Ibid.,p.z 7. 23. lbid.,p. 9. z4. Ibid.,p. 49. 25. Berg and Allen, op. cir., p. zo. z6. Bergler, op. cit., pp. 17z-I73. z 7. Ibid., p. 87. z8. Berg and Allen, op. tit., p. 49. z9. Bergler, op. cit., p. 263. 3o. Ibid., p. i99. 3 I. Bailey, op. cir., pp. i6i-i67. 3z. Ibid., p. x66. 33. Bergler, op. cir. p. 69. 34. Boss, M., Meaning and Content of Sexual Perversions. New York, Grune & Stratton, x949, p. 92. z. Ibid., pp. z6-29.
3z
Journal of R e l i g i o n and H e a l t h
