DEATHLY DOCTRINE
Christian Churches and AIDS
By David Mertz (1) & Udo Schüklenk (2)
(1) University of Massachusetts, Department of Philosophy, USA.
(2) Monash University, Centre for Human Bioethics, Australia.
Introduction
AIDS, as it has developed these last 12 years, is not so much a disease
as it is an ideology. AIDS has been an epidemic, but it has been an
epidemic of grants, funds, monies spent on research, prevention,
education and care, and theological definition and redefinition, even
more than it has been an epidemic of deaths of a certain sort.[1] Every disease has always been a social and
cultural phenomenon a phenonemon of meaning at the same moment
that it has been a phenomenon of health and dying [2]. But the meaning given AIDS has become
mythic almost heroic; this quality is witnessed by the spectacular scale
on which AIDS is visibly made to appear. As we will discuss below, the
funding of AIDS is quite disproportionate with its epidemiological
significance; but more than just the money spent on AIDS, there exists a
social and religious imperative to give visibility to AIDS. AIDS is
made thusly visible in media representations, only a small part of which
are occupied with actual public health information; in highly publicised
memorials such as the 'AIDS Quilt' which instances the number of deaths
in its very physical presence (a presence which would, of course, be
vastly overshadowed by an hypothetical 'Cancer Quilt' or
'Automobile-fatality Quilt'); and also in carving out special
religious and ethical categories for AIDS, apart from the generic of
'disease'. AIDS, more than other diseases particularly lends itself to
hermeneutic appropriation by Christian churches.
Several characteristics transform AIDS, an acquired
immunodeficiency, into the fascinating disease for all kinds of
churches and religions. Two have already been mentioned: Death and
money. Another is the fact that AIDS is probably a primarily
sexually acquired disease. Ten years into the epidemic, it has
become clear that in the Western world the overwhelming majority of
those dying of AIDS belong to a Christian category of sinners: gay men
(and IV drug user, who make up most of the rest don't fall into any
great favor of Christian churches themselves). For instance in the USA
by the end of 1992, 85% of all persons with AIDS were either gay men, or
iv drug user, or both.[3]
AIDS in Australia is a nearly exclusively male disease: 97.2% of all
persons with AIDS in this country are males [4] which suggests an even
greater concentration amongst gay-men than in the USA. The situation in
Europe is not fundamentally different.[5] It has become obvious that the predicted heterosexual
AIDS epidemic has not happened, and is highly unlikely to materialize.[6] The picture of AIDS is
hence one of a highly visible, well- funded disease, generally fatal,
affecting primarily homosexuals. Religious groups and organizations
have traditionally been interested in all of these issues: what after
all, could be of greater theological richness than a disease so
thoroughly saturated in deviance, sin and death?
(Homo)Sexuality and Christians
AIDS and male homosexuality are connected in the sense that AIDS
is primarily a gay male disease. The converse is not entailed: the vast
majority of gay men are not at risk for AIDS diseases.[7] It is no secret that
Christians consider homosexuality bad or evil.[8] For most Christians
homosexuality is a sin, and homosexuals are sinners. For this
prescription, and others of its sort, Christians rely on their certainty
of God's existence; and their knowledge of His wishes. God's views are
considered morally binding for humans.[9] Before we discuss a number of religious positions on
AIDS, it is necessary to get a rough understanding of these
institutions' views on homosexuality.
The origins of Christian condemnation of homosexuality are diverse
and multiple. However, a confluence of social and theological
traditions had created in the Christian consciousness an uniquely
vitriolic condemnation of homosexuality by the start of the 13th century
a tradition first formalized in the Third Lateran Council of 1179 [10]; and this tradition
has remained with us until today in most Christian churches. Much of
the basis of this condemnation arises of the widespread 12th century use
of the normative concept Nature, which has its roots in the pagan
mythology of the goddess Natura which in turn entered into a
Thomistic synthesis with the then recently rediscovered biological texts
of Aristotle. Armed with a prescriptive concept of Nature
Christians since the 12th century have found in that canonical document
officially established with the Council of Trent in 1546 'The Bible'
numerous sections actively condemning homosexuality and homosexuals. It
is mostly in relation to this interpreted concept of 'Nature' or
'naturalness' that Christians today condemn homosexual behavior.
'The Bible' contains a number of writings from different authors
over several hundreds of years, which Christians believe are unified in
expressing the same message of God. The message is clear to them: Thou
shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination"
[Leviticus 18:22, King James Version, and henceforth][11]. The penalty for
such a behavior, which is committed on a regular basis by approximately
10% of the sexually active population [12] is not insignificant: If a man also lie with
mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an
abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be
upon them"[Leviticus 20:13]. Under the modern interpretation of
the 'Bible', using a prescriptive and thoroughly non-descriptive use of
the term 'nature', homosexuals are said to 'engage in unnatural acts'
[Romans 1:26-7].[13],[14] These
sinners will fail to reach every Christians goal, the 'Kingdom of God',
the promised life after death [Corinthians I 6:9- 10, Timothy I 1:10].[15] Recently, the
Catholic Church has expanded on these teachings by explicitly
intervening on numerous occasions (especially in the USA) against laws
that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.[16]
Gay Christians have attempted to reinterpret the 'Bible' in an
attempt to remain good Christians without changing their sexual
orientation.[17]
Reformers have gone so far as to declare the church's views on
homosexuality a 'sin'. For instance John McNeill a former Jesuit priest
who lost his job because of his homosexuality stated in a recent
interview: There is no question that the Vatican's stance and opposition
is objectively sinful."[18] Interestingly, gay believers use the same
non-scientific language and analytical frameworks to support their case
as does their adversary, the official church does. Reverend J. Robert
Williams, a gay priest of the US Episcopal Church has stated in a speech
that Mother Theresa should have sex and called monogamy as unnatural as
celibacy.[19] These
attempts by gay Christians remind us of beagles arguing with a
vivisectionist about a certain experiment to be done on them: it is
unlikely that these gay Christians have any chance of convincing
official Christianity.
The 'Bible' is a logically incoherent collection of statements made in
different centuries; in order to cope with this problem Christian
churches most especially Catholicism have established institutions which
have interpretive monopolies on the 'Bible'. As pope John Paul II
stated to an AIDS conference: "the church is the [only] correct
interpreter of the Divine Laws".[20] The Catholic Church's interpretations of the above
mentioned quotations on same-sex relations have been in effect for at
least the last 600 years, as Boswell has shown;[21] effecting change in
this longstanding doctrine seems unlikely.
Although the Catholic church has moved away from a strict death penalty
for Sodomites, that their condemnation remains is unambiguous.
Homosexuality is a grave transgression of the divine will" writes
J.F. Harvey in the Catholic University of America's New Catholic
Encyclopedia. In Harvey's view people who have only a tendency
toward homosexuality (in that they have erotic dreams, day dreaming, and
unintended urges) are free of guilt, unless they give truly free
consent." Only the latter action, he opines, involves moral guilt.[22] Unimpressed by the
fact that conversion 'therapies' have failed so far to convert
homosexuals into heterosexuals, and by the fact that professionals
consider these 'therapies' as unethical [23], Harvey presents us with precise proposals on how to
convert a homosexual. Among his recommendations are to impress
homosexuals with the divine purpose of suffering in every life," to
drag them into certain ascetical activities every day," some form of
meditation for at least 20 minutes a day, Mass and Communion as often as
possible during the week, daily examination of conscience," and so
on.
If Harvey's wasn't a Catholic recipe for the conversion of a homosexual
into a heterosexual, but a program of a smaller religious sect, it can
safely be assumed, that Christian counsellors and the public would
denounce such a program as a brain washing enterprise. Joachim Piegsa
in a paper, condemning the utilitarian, hedonistic 'sex ideology' states
bluntly:
On the basis of this sex ideology quite a number of psychiatrists
refuse to acknowledge that there exists abnormal, addicted behavior in
the area of sexuality, too. Any abnormality is defined in terms of the
'failure to choose the proper partner', which can reach different
degrees. It starts with pedophilia, continues with homosexuality,
exhibitionism, fetishism, with necrophilia and coprophilia, and extends
to the destruction of the partner in the sexual murder.[24]
The suggestion of a smooth and continuous progression from pedophilia,
with an intermediate worsening at homosexuality between consenting
adults, to sexually motivated murder, makes clear just how Catholics
evaluate homosexuality.[25]
Christians and AIDS
We may summarize the facts mentioned so far: i) The vast majority of
persons with AIDS in the Western world are gay men and IV drug users.
ii) Gay sexuality is a 'sin', and the 'sinner' deserves death (or
another harsh penalty) for his crime against God's will.[26] Patricia Jacobi has
observed:
The fatal nature of AIDS ..., and its association with sexual and
illegal activities make AIDS a concern not only for [churches
directly]... Some physicians with fundamentalist beliefs have [also]
openly proposed a direct relationship between sinful behavior ... and
AIDS. These physicians attribute the virus's 'birth' to a supernatural,
teleological response to sinful practices.[27]
When AIDS started to look like a threat not just to the well-being
of some gay men but to what is called the 'general population', most
newspapers published one front-page article after another on the
epidemic which was expected to materialize any moment. The Christian
hierarchy have probably accepted 'the myth of heterosexual AIDS', as
Michael Fumento called it in his book of that title [28], even more than have
lay-people. A report informs us [29] that an Irish conference of high-ranking church
officials ('Bishops') was better informed than anyone else in the world
about the epidemiology of AIDS diseases in this country in 1987. They
claimed to know that Ireland was on the edge of an AIDS epidemic."
In reality, the facts entirely contradict the beliefs of the Bishops:
Ireland never was, is not, and probably will not face an AIDS
epidemic.[30] When fear
exists and modern science is unable to provide an immediate successful
answer to a threat, religious groups and institutions fill the lacuna
with their theological analyses and solutions.
A staff member of the British Anglican Church, Reverend Clements
concluded in 1987: In the light of an unprejudiced reading of the Bible,
it has to be said, that such assurances [that AIDS is not 'God's'
punishment for 'sinful' lifestyle] are misplaced. Disease is explicitly
mentioned as a consequence of disobeying God's law."[31] B. Napier, chairman
of the Christian Research Institute has an even deeper insight into the
possibility of the control of AIDS to offer: AIDS is a brand new disease
to humans. The virus is one of a family of four; the other three affect
animals only. Significantly, the only effective control of the virus in
animals is slaughter."[32] The Bishop of Birmingham, Hugh Montefiore reminds us
that
[T]hose who indulge in immoral sex are breaking God's law
and are therefore at much greater risk of contracting the disease.
Unchastity is contrary to the natural law and it is not therefore
surprising that human bodies are often ill-adapted to it, as evidence by
the spread of the AIDS virus shows."[33]
Doctor of Theology Russell Nelson, a senior Mormon Church official
considers AIDS as a plague abetted by the immoral."[34] A high ranking
representative of the Catholic Church, Cardinal Hume wrote in an
editorial for the London Times: AIDS is better seen as a proof
for the general law that actions have consequences and that disorder
inevitably damages and then destroys."[35] The German Catholic
Church engages in this language of damnation as well. Joseph
Höffner, the former Cardinal of Cologne, commented We call the
sickness a wrath of God. This is also the case with AIDS."[36]
The primarily sexually acquired immunodeficiency AIDS has been used by
Christian churches as a proof that their teachings on homosexuality are
correct, and that those suffering from AIDS (if they belong to the risk
group of gay men) are penalized for their immoral behavior. In fact, by
aggravating the incidence of AIDS, Christian churches act circularly to
create the very disease they whose spread they use as vindication of
their theology. Church responses to AIDS prevention education differ
markedly from scientific public health policies. Realizing that most
sexually active teenagers and adults have sex with more than one
partner, and that they have sex before and outside marriage (as
evidenced by dramatic increases in the epidemiology of sexually
transmitted diseases in the last 20 years [37]), the professional
and commonsense recommendation has been to reduce the risk of acquiring
disease to a minimum through the use of condoms.[38] However, the Catholic
Church's disapproval of artificial means of birth control has led it to
block the distribution, and discourage the use, of condoms for the
prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS presumably
lest they fall into the hands of those seeking to avoid pregnancy.
Catholic Professor of Philosophy Giorgio Giannini said in the
Universe a British Christian paper: To confront the disease of
the century with condoms signifies an attitude which not even minimally
cures moral aspects. Compromise and morals cannot go together, the only
remedy against AIDS is abstinence."[39] Similarly, in Germany, the German Bishops'
Conference criticized in a press release an AIDS education campaign of
the Bundeszentrale für gesundheitliche Aufklärung ( Federal
Center for Health Awareness").[40] Pope John Paul II states, The abuse of sexuality has
a tendency to promote the spread of disease." He considers the use
of condoms a severe violation of the personal dignity and therefore
morally prohibited." The victims of AIDS are quickly declared
mentally ill: One is not far from the truth if one says that parallel to
the spread of AIDS, a kind of immunodeficiency has arisen on the level
of the life-values, which can be quite accurately characterized as a
illness of the mind."[41]
The Catholic Church opposes the use of condoms as a means of
halting the spread of AIDS. This extends so far as preventing Catholic
hospitals from the participation in AIDS awareness and education weeks,
which are regular institutions in many US cities.[42] In the Philippines,
with its overwhelmingly Catholic population, the government battles its
very own fight to get AIDS prevention messages across to the people,
against aggressive attacks from Roman Catholic Cardinal Jaime Sin. Sin
declares that the government is sacrificing moral values to solve the
country's problems."[43] John Paul II, at a recent tour through the slums of
Uganda, stated at a rally of about 30,000 young people, Chastity is the
only way to put an end to the tragic plague of AIDS."[44] This undermines
efforts of US-government funded efforts in Kampala to promotes the use
of condoms to thwart the spread of AIDS. In fairness, not all
Christian churches so disregard human lives: Terry Lynch, executive
director of the Downtown Cluster of Congregations supports the plan of
Washington D.C. to distribute condoms in schools. He said the plan is
saving lives. That's the bottom line."[45] But Lynch's opinions
represent a small minority of Christian churches.
One might wonder whether the Christian teachings discussed have
any consequences in our daily lives given, for example, that the
church's opposition to contraceptives is largely ignored by most of its
membership in the Western world. Unfortunately, scientific research has
shown Christian opinion to have a palpably harmful effect. Conservative
religious views tend to lead to fear, prejudice, and discrimination
toward AIDS sufferers concludes a study which analyzed the determinants
of fear of AIDS among Australian college students. Greater knowledge is
associated with lower fear of AIDS. The stepwise analysis indicated
that more frequent church attendance was associated with higher fear of
AIDS."[46] This
finding is not isolated; a number of other studies come to similar
conclusions: The American students' homophobia bias and reaction scores
were higher than those of the French students. The latter findings were
interpreted with reduced effects of conservative, orthodox religion in
France."[47]
Religious fundamentalism is the most important factor leading to
intolerance for those who suffer from AIDS.[48] Furthermore, the
influence of Christian ideology on gay Christians with AIDS itself
reduces the quality of life these people experience. Franks [49] found that higher
death anxiety in the men with AIDS was associated with greater church
attendance." They explained this finding this way: gay Christians
with AIDS seek yet fail in their attempt to find solace through the
doctrine of formal religion and their associated views of life after
death."[50]
Death
Christian efforts in the AIDS crisis have not particularly been
directed towards the control or elimination of AIDS-related deaths, but
rather towards the management of such deaths within the framework of
Christian theology, and for the conceptualization of such deaths. Even
those churches which, unlike the Catholic Church, do not theologically
oppose every reasonable epidemiological measure relevant to reducing the
risk of AIDS transmission are still primarily concerned to bring people
with AIDS back into the fold, and to cure their moral sickness of
the soul."[51] For
example, while the Catholic Church bans its hospitals from distributing
safe sex" information, in New York, Catholic institutions provide
36% of nursing home care for AIDS patients."[52] Besides providing
dying lessons in Catholic theology one might reasonably say
indoctrination to AIDS patients, these hospitals receive
considerable governmental funding for each patient, and for them AIDS
was a financial boom."[53]
In New York City (Manhattan) alone there are at least thirty
ministries established explicitly for this purpose of Christianizing the
dying.[54] The
Christian fetishization of death is not unique to AIDS, of course; just
examine the sort of cloyish affection so universally heaped upon a
Mother Theresa for her association with the dying (including her various
AIDS hospices). But with AIDS, the clearest conflict arises between
churches' theological doctrines and the lifestyles and values of the
dying. For lepers or malaria sufferers the churches can vacantly
celebrate the innocence of their poverty and unsanitary conditions, but
to persons with AIDS the church proclaims, in the voice of New York's
Cardinal O'Conner, forgiveness of sins includes (giving up) a life-style
not acceptable to God."[55]
Christian attitudes about AIDS differ somewhat, of course. Whether
AIDS is seen as a symbol of spiritual pollution or moral decay rather
than a matter of public health,"[56] or
simply the result of such 'sin',
the disease is usually discussed in relation to millenarian
beliefs, sexual mores, magical approaches to illness, and the
strengthening or definition of the boundaries between the religious
group and the larger society. Each group uses AIDS as a symbol to
reinforce its own standards of sexual behavior and ideal of family
life.[57]
Wallack [58] has
provided some evidence that religious people, for all the reasons
discussed, are just not the ideal persons to care for people with AIDS.
Wallack remarks, The attitudes toward providing clinical care to
homosexual AIDS patients appeared to be associated with religion...
Protestant and Catholic respondents were more likely than Jewish
respondents to express discomfort examining homosexual patient." One
in ten respondents (of all staff of a large metropolitan hospital in
Manhattan) agreed that AIDS is God's punishment to homosexuals, 6%
agreed that patients who choose a homosexual life-style deserve to get
AIDS."[59] We feel
certain that Christian hospitals, whose staff believes these prejudices
by theological dictate, to contain such dicta with much more prevalence
than will secular hospitals.
We cannot help but question the appropriateness of state subsidies
of such millenarian beliefs, and theological sexual mores. This for at
least two reasons: Firstly, their efforts are often in direct
contradiction of scientifically guided epidemiological procedures; and
secondly their understanding of care is more often than not contrary to
the best interest of persons with AIDS.
Money
AIDS research has been, financially, the largest medical
project ever undertaken, especially in the USA, but to a lesser extent
throughout the industrial world. Even in the US, where universal
medical care is not guaranteed, AIDS treatment is state funded to a
large extent, though the poor who die of other causes largely go without
medical treatment. In nations where medical care is universally
provided to citizens, treatment does not exhibit such a discrepancy; but
such a difference does appear in funding for education, research and
prevention. We focus on the US, where the funding for AIDS is most
concentrated.
For each AIDS death reported in the USA in 1990, the government
spent $53,745 in research and education. That's more than 15 times the
$3,241 spent per cancer death and about 58 times the $922 per death
parceled out to researchers fighting heart disease.[60] The Federal budget
for AIDS in America was, in 1990, higher than the budget for cancer,
which killed more than 12 times as many people in 1989, and much higher
than that for heart disease, the nation's top killer.[61] The US Centers for
Disease Control spent over $800 million in 1991 on AIDS research,
and considerably more when education and treatment are included.[62] AIDS Funding has
continued to increased since 1991 in proportion to funding of other
diseases. In 1993, the Congress approved a record $2.5 billion spending
package for AIDS prevention and research."[63] Of this, About $1.3
billion in the package is expected to be used for AIDS research by the
National Institutes of Health. The amount exceeds 1993 levels by about
$225 million."[64]
Funding for other diseases has remained stable or even decreased during
the period when AIDS funding has increased.
A significant proportion of AIDS funds are directed through
Christian, particularly Catholic institutions. Where such direction of
funds occurs, epidemiologically sound procedures are abandoned to
theological dictates. Often enough government simply gives way in its
regulated procedures to accommodate such Christian theology, as in New
York State in 1991 where Catholic nursing homes refused to accept state
guidelines about AIDS prevention counselling.[65] Naturally, these
violating nursing homes continue(d) to receive funding from the
government. In fact about 1,800 churches nationwide (in the USA) have
AIDS relief and education programs, making the religious community the
second largest provider of AIDS-related services outside the
government."[66]
While the confidentiality of the records of private organizations makes
it difficult to find an exact breakdown of the proportion of the funding
of these religious AIDS-programs which comes from government sources, it
is clear that the portion is substantial.
Conclusion
The influence of Christian ideology and Christian institutions on AIDS
education and prevention is harmful in that it undermines realistic
approaches undertaken by public health authorities in secular societies.
Furthermore we provided some evidence for the claim that Christian
churches, especially the Catholic Church, agitate and try to
indoctrinate persons with AIDS in their hospitals and hospices. It
abuses its unique position as one of the biggest care providers for
religious propaganda. The consequences for the psychological well-being
of gay men and IV drug users with AIDS are far from salutary. These
facts suggest to us the need for maintenance of a strict separation of
state and church. The elimination of Christian influence in all areas
of AIDS education and prevention is another important goal. Finally, it
is recommended that all funding for Christian institutions providing
care for persons with AIDS stop as fast as possible. The money spent
for their work could better be given either to public hospitals, or more
appropriately to self-organizations of persons with AIDS. *
The authors thank George Broadhead (Gay and Lesbian Humanist
Association), Kenilworth (UK); Petra Deckert, Dortmund; Philip Johnson,
Berkeley (USA); Dirk Meyer, Köln; Bree Scott-Hartland (People with
AIDS Coalition), New York City; Bernhard Rohrbacher, Philadelphia; and
the Sekretariat der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz, Bonn, for either
technical assistance in the preparation of this text or the sending of
helpful references.
References
1. Palca J. Putting AIDS research in perspective. Science
1991; 251: 1172. Thompson D. The AIDS political machine. Time 22 January 1990:
24-5.
2. For excellent discussions of this hermeneutics of illness,
see Sontag S. Illness as Metaphor. New York: Farrar, Strauss & Giroux 1978;
and also Sontag S. AIDS and Its Metaphors. New York: Farrar, Strauss &
Giroux 1988.
3. Centers for Disease Control. HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report.
Atlanta, February 1993.
4. National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research.
Australian HIV Surveillance Report 1993; 9(1): 1-32.
5. Bundesgesundheitsamt. AIDS-Fälle und HIV-Infektionen in
der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Nr. 1/1993: 43-47.
6. Chapman S. Dogma disputed: potential endemic heterosexual
transmission of human immunodeficiency virus in Australia. Australian Journal
of Public Health 1992; 16(1): 128-41. US National Research Council. Social
Impact of AIDS. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press 1993. Fumento M. The
Myth of Heterosexual AIDS. New York: Basic Books 1989. Root-Bernstein RS.
Rethinking AIDS: The Tragic Cost of Premature Consensus. New York: The Free
Press 1993.
7. Schüklenk U. HIV-related phraseology. Australian Journal
of Public Health 1992; 16(3): 329-30.
8. Greenberg DF, Bystryn MH. Christian Intolerance of
Homosexuality. American Journal of Sociology 1982/3; 88(3): 515-48.
9. The best refutation of all logical and moral arguments for
the existence of 'God' has been written by Russell B. Why I am not a
Christian, and other essays on religion and related subjects. London: Allen
and Unwin 1967. It makes superb reading even for the philosophically not so
well versed reader. A quite entertaining collection of biblical nonsense has
been provided by Glass M. The Bible - Humbug and Horror. Chippendale
(Australia): Rationalist Association of Australia 1983.
10. Boswell J. Christianity, Social Tolerance, and
Homosexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1980: 310.
11. It is clear, certainly, that the concern here in
Leviticus is not to proscribe female sexual contact with men although many,
many specific such prescriptions are contained in this document but rather
that the presumed readership of the book is exclusively male. The Christian
treatment of female homosexuality has add a complex history, quite distinct
from that of male homosexuality; but overall, by the twentieth century, both
are generally treated as identical categories of sinfulness.
12. This ten percent is, of course, the figure somewhat
fancifully drawn from the mass of data presented in Kinsey, AC, WB Pomeroy,
and CE Martin, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, Philadelphia: WB Saunders,
1948. We mention this popular number not firmly to state the exact extent of
the practice of homosexuality, but simply to indicate the substantial minority
of human sexual behavior which is homosexual.
13. For a philosophical comment on these concepts see Mohr
RD. Homosexuality. In: Becker LC, et al (Hgb). Encyclopedia of Ethics. New
York: Garland 1992; Vol. 1: 552-4.
14. ROM 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile
affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which
is against nature:
ROM 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,
burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is
unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was
meet.
15. CO1 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not
inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor
idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with
mankind,
CO1 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
TI1 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for
men-stealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing
that is contrary to sound doctrine;
16. Verlautbarungen des Apostolischen Stuhls 72. Schreiben
der Kongregation fü die Glaubenslehre an die Bischöfe der Katholischen Kirche
über die Seelsorge für homosexuelle Personen. Bonn: Sekretariat der Deutschen
Bischofskonferenz 30 Oktober 1986.
17. See, e.g. McNeill J. The Church and the Homosexual.
Boston: Beacon Press 1988.
18. Anonymous. Interview with John McNeill. Chiron Rising
April 1993.
19. United Press International dispatch. Gay Episcopal
Priest Dead of AIDS-Related Disease. 27 December 1992.
20. Johannes Paul II. Ansprache an die Teilnehmer des IV.
Internationalen AIDS-Kongresses im Vatikan. Rom 15 November 1989.
21. Boswell J. Op.cit.
22. Harvey JF. Homosexuality. In: Catholic University of
America. New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. VII. New York: McGraw-Hill 1967: 116-
9.
23. Bancroft J. Homosexuality and the medical profession.
Journal of Medical Ethics 1975; 1: 176-80.
24. Piegsa J. AIDS - Krankheit und Herausforderung. In:
Katholische Sozialwissenschaftliche Zentralstelle M"nchengladbach (Hgb).
Kirche und Gesellschaft. K"ln: J.P. Bachem Verlag 1987.
25. For a discussion of the evaluation of homosexuality in
the Psychiatric field, see Schüklenk U. Male Homosexuality. Medical Journal of
Australia 1992; 157: 213-4.
26. Kowalewski MR. Religious Constructions of the AIDS
Crisis. Sociological Analysis 1990; 51(1): 91-6.
27. Jakobi PL. Medical Science, Christian Fundamentalism,
and the Etiology of AIDS. AIDS Public Policy Journal 1990; 5(2): 89-93.
28. Fumento M. OP.CIT.
29. Anonymous. Pishops say condom use could help spread
AIDS. The Independent (UK) 14 January 1987.
30. For example, the WHO Semi-Annual Statistics Report on
AIDS, of January 1993 reports a total of 241 AIDS cases in Ireland through
December 30, 1991. This is a cumulative number of cases; the yearly diagnoses
have never exceeded 50. There is no evidence that a higher percentage of even
these small number of cases in Ireland are heterosexually transmitted than
they are in the USA.
31. Clements RD. AIDS, gays and God's judgement.
Evangelicals Now 1987; 1(1): 1-2.
32. Napier B. AIDS Just another disease? Evangelical Times
November 1986.
33. Petrie J. Churches urges biblica restraint to beat AIDS.
The Daily Telegraph (UK) 08 December 1986.
34. Anonymous. News in Brief: Utah. Advocate 17 November
1992: 27.
35. Hume B. AIDS: time for a moral renaissance. The Times
(UK) 07 January 1987.
36. Presseamt des Erzbistums Köln. AIDS: Vier Aussagen des
Erzbischofs von Köln, Kardinal Joseph H"ffner. K"ln: Erzbistum K"ln 1987.
37. Centers for Disease Control. Sexual behavior among high
school students. JAMA 1992; 267: 628. Rolfs RT et al. Epidemiology of primary
and secondary syphilis in the US. JAMA 1990; 264: 1432-7.
38. Bundeszentrale für gesundheitliche Aufklärung. Starting
points for AIDS education in the eastern and western länder of the FRG. Köln
1992.
39. Singleton R. Italian AIDS TV adverts outrage the
Vatican. The Universe (UK) 31 July 1988.
40. Pressemitteilung. Erklärung des Ständigen Rates der
Deutschen Bischofskonferenz zur 'AIDS-Anzeigenkampagne'. Bonn: Pressestelle
der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz 27 January 1987.
41. Johannes Paul II. Op.cit. [emphasis added].
42. Navarro M. Ethics of Giving Advise Trouble Catholic
Hospitals. New York Times 01 March 1993.
43. Pleming S. Manila Slams Cardinal Sin for Attack on
Condoms. Nachrichtenagentur Reuters 05 March 1993. Clary M. Philippines
AIDS. Narichtenagentur Associated Press 27 January 1993.
44. Cowell A. Pope in Uganda, Urges Chastity as AIDS
Defense. New York Times 08 February 1993: A5.
45. Ragland J et al. Critics See Values as Casualty of AIDS
Battle Plan. Washington Post 14 May 1992: B1.
46. Austin D, et al. Some Determinants of Fear about AIDS
among Australian College Students. Psychological Reports 1989; 64: 1239-44.
47. Conner G, et al. AIDS Knowledge and Homophobia among
French and American University Students. Psychological Reports 1990; 67: 1147-
52.
48. Johnson SD. Factors Related to Intolerance of AIDS
Victims. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 1987; 26(1): 105-10.
49. Franks K, et al. Exploration of Death Anxiety as a
Function of Religious Variables in Gay Men with and without AIDS. Omega:
Journal of Death and Dying 1990/1; 22(1): 43-50.
50. Ibid.
51. Thompson W. Harlem Week of Prayer. People with AIDS
Coalition [New York City] Newsline 1992; 83: 27.
52. Navarro M. Op.cit.
53. Navarro M. Op.cit.
54. See PWAC. Resources Directory. People with AIDS [New
York City] Coalition Newsline 1993; 85: 11 (Resource Directory Issue #85).
55. Kowalewski MR. Op.cit.
56. Palmer SJ. AIDS as Metaphor A study of seven religious
groups. Society 1989; 26 (Jan/Feb): 44-50.
57. Palmer SJ. Op.cit.
58. Wallack JJ. AIDS Anxiety Among Health Care
Professionals. Hospital and Community Medicine 1989; 40(5): 507-10.
59. Ibid.
60. Kilzer L. The AIDS Mythology. Star Tribune (Minneapolis)
05 July 1992: A1.
61. Thompson D. Op.cit.
62. Palca J. Op.cit.
63. San Francisco Examiner, Wednesday October 20, 1993, A-
10.
64. Ibid.
65. Navarro M. Op.cit.
66. Briggs D. As AIDS Casts Shadow of Death, More Churches
Find Compassion. Los Angeles Times 28 March 1993: A1.