2016年8月30日火曜日

聖霊に対する冒瀆は赦されない – 兄弟を傷つけておきながら,謝罪も和解も拒み続ける或る人物について

『カトリック教会のカテキズム』 1864 段落において,マタイ福音書 12,31 におけるイェス様の言葉の引用とともに,こう述べられています:
「あらゆる罪や冒瀆は赦される.しかし,聖霊に対する冒瀆は赦されない」(Mt 12,31). 神の慈しみは無限である.しかし,神の慈しみを悔悛によって受け入れることを敢えて拒むなら,それは,自身の罪の赦しと聖霊が差し出す救済とを拒むことである.さような頑なさは,臨終の不悔悛と永遠の滅びへ至り得る.
つまり,「聖霊に対する冒瀆」とは,神の愛の恵みを拒むことです.そしてそれは,隣人愛をないがしろにすることを包含しています.

なぜなら,「わたしは神を愛していると言いながらも兄弟を憎む者は,嘘言者である.実際,目に見えている自身の兄弟を愛さない者は,目に見えない神を愛することはできない」(1 Jn 4,20-21) からであり,かつ,「イェスはキリストであると信ずる者は,神から生まれたのであり,そして,生んでくださった神を愛する者は誰しも,神から生まれた[ほかの]者をも愛する」(ibid., 5,1) からです.神を愛することと隣人愛とは相互に等価的です.

ですから,イェス様はわたしたちにこう勧めています (Mt 5,23-24) :
かくして,祭壇に献げものをしに行くときに,兄弟とあなたとが何ごとかで対立していることを思い出したなら,献げものを祭壇の前に放置して,まずは兄弟と和解しに行きなさい.次いで,捧げものをしに戻って来なさい.
もし和解を拒むなら? イェス様は譬えを用いて次のように答えています (Mt 22,11-13) :
王は,息子の婚宴に招かれた人々を見るためにやってくると,礼服を着ていない者に気づいた.王は彼に言った:「我が友よ,どうして礼服を着ずに来たのだね?」 その者は黙ったままであった.そこで王は仕える者たちに言った:「その者を,手足を縛って,外の暗闇へ放り出せ: そこで泣いて歯ぎしりするしかあるまい」.
実際,『カトリック教会のカテキズム』 1861 段落でもこう述べられています:
愛がそうであるのと同様に,大罪も,人間の自由のひとつの根源的な可能性である.大罪は,愛の喪失と,聖なるものとする恵み – すなわち,恵みの状態 [ status gratiae ] – の剥奪とをもたらす.悔悛と神の赦しとによって贖われなければ,大罪は,キリストの御国からの排除と地獄での永遠の死とを惹起する.我々の自由は,取り返しのつかない決定的な選択を成す能力を有しているのである.
そして,『カテキズム』 1415段落ではこう規定されています:
聖体拝領においてキリストのからだを受けたい者は,恵みの状態 [ status gratiae ] にあるのでなければならない.大罪を犯したことを意識している者は,あらかじめ悔悛の秘跡において赦しを受けていなければ,感謝の祭儀に与ってはならない.
つまり,隣人愛をないがしろにしながら和解しようとしない者は,恵みの状態を剥奪されているのですから,御ミサに与ることはできません.

さて,去る 7月17日,第一回 LGBT 特別ミサの後に行われた分かち合いの集いにおいて,或る人物が同席の兄弟のひとりを心ない言葉でひどく傷つけました.その場にいたほかの者たち皆が,その事件の証人となるでしょう.

傷つけられた人は,口論することなく,すぐさまその場から立ち去りました.LGBT カトリック・ジャパンの共同代表のひとり,宮野亨氏が会場の玄関口で彼に必死で謝り,そして,わたしの妻が最寄りの駅まで彼に付き添いました.

ところが,その人を傷つけた心ない人物は,何の反省の色も謝罪の態度も示しませんでした.

司会役をしていたわたしは,集いの雰囲気をそれ以上悪化させないために,その場で彼を戒めることはせず,数日後に,誠意を以て謝罪と和解の態度を被害者に対して示すよう彼に勧告しました.しかし,彼は応じようとしませんでした.

問題の人物は,この幾年来,ほかの幾つものグループにおいて同様のトラブルを起こしてきており,その都度,何の謝罪も和解もしようとしないので,それらのグループすべてから排除処分を受けてきています.そのなかには,或るプロテスタント共同体も含まれます.

本年 4月,Tokyo Rainbow Pride 2016 の数週間前,問題の人物は, LGBT カトリック・ジャパンの Facebook ページに,そのプロテスタント共同体を主宰する牧師に対する攻撃的な言葉を書き込みました.わたしは彼にキリスト者にとっての和解の重要性を指摘し,その牧師との和解を勧めました.すると彼は,わたしの勧めを拒否したばかりか,わたしに対する逆恨みの言辞を LGBT カトリック・ジャパンの Facebook ページに書き込み始めました.結局彼は,Tokyo Rainbow Pride の LGBT カトリック・ジャパンの出店にも姿を現しませんでした.

LGBT 特別ミサは,保守的な人々により妨害されることのないよう,非公開となっており,参加希望者は必ず事前の申込をするよう公示してありました.ところが,問題の人物は,幾人かの知人とともに,7月17日のミサに,申込無しでやってきました.いずれも顔見知りではあったので,わたしも宮野亨氏も彼ら・彼女らを拒絶せず,むしろ歓迎の態度を示しました.ところが,その結果が上述の事態です.我々の彼ら・彼女らに対する受容的な対応のせいで,初めて出会った兄弟のひとりがひどく傷つけられることになってしまいました.

この心ない人物は以前,「今までにも幾つものグループをつぶしてきた」と豪語していました.彼が悪意を以て LGBT カトリック・ジャパンの活動に対しても嫌がらせをしようとていたのかを彼に直接確認することは,敢えてしていません.

いずれにせよ彼は,兄弟愛をないがしろにして,何の反省の意も示そうとしません.つまり,敢えてみづから神の愛の恵みを拒絶し,聖霊を冒瀆しています.そのような者は,上に見たように,「悔悛と神の赦しとによって贖われなければ」,神の愛の宴に参加することはできません.したがって,LGBT カトリック・ジャパンとしても,この心ない人物の参加を今後は断らざるを得ないと判断しました.

8月28日の特別ミサに,問題の人物は事前に参加を申し込みませんでしたが,前回と同様,申込無しにやってきて,入場を強要する可能性が危惧されました.主催者側には男手は宮野亨氏とわたししかおらず,ふたりとも御ミサの侍者や進行役をするため,もしトラブルが起きても対処しようがありません.

そこで,彼が会場に無理やり入ってくることのないよう,警備会社に依頼して警備員二名を派遣してもらいました.彼が実力行使をしようとしても,警備員が二人で通せんぼうをすれば大丈夫でしょうから.また,彼が後から「からだが触れた」等の言いがかりを我々につけてくる事態を未然に防ぐためでもあります.

警備員を二名派遣するよう依頼したのに対し,その二人がまだ警備の仕事の初心者であり,上司が彼らに同伴したため,結果的に三名の警備員が会場の建物の出入り口を守ることになりました.いずれにせよ,彼らには私服姿で来てもらっていたので,そうと言われなければ警備員とはわからなかったはずです.

警備員として派遣される人々は,職務に必要な専門的訓練を事前に受けており,問題の人物がふるうかもしれない暴力に対して有効かつ合法的に対応するすべを心得ています.警備員の方が彼に対して積極的に違法な暴力をふるうことはあり得ません.

いずれにせよ,問題の人物は 8月28日の特別ミサ会場にみづから姿を現すことはありませんでした.しかし,彼の知人のひとりがやってきました.その人物は,事前の参加申込をしていませんでしたが,顔見知りではあったので,わたしは,ミサに参加するようその人物をその場で招待しました.しかし,その人物は会場内に入ろうとせず,立ち去りました.その後も,ミサ後の集いが終わるまで,会場内でも会場外でも何のトラブルもありませんでした.主に感謝します.

我々は,特別ミサを企画する側として,参加者の方々を不快なトラブルから守るために,今後も可能な限りの対策を取って行きたいと思います.

また,我々は,傷つけられた方のために祈るとともに,その方を傷つけた者が神の愛の恵みに気づき,悔悛するよう,祈り続けています.

ルカ小笠原晋也

2016年08月28日,第二回 LGBT 特別ミサが行われました

2016年08月28日,第二回 LGBT 特別ミサが行われました.その恵みをわたしたちに与えてくださった主に感謝します.そして,司式してくださった小宇佐敬二神父様に感謝します.

当日の第二朗読で述べられているように,わたしたちは「新たな契約の仲介者イェス」に近づきます (He 12,24). あるいは,むしろ,イェス様は常にわたしたちの近くにいらしてくださいます.わたしたち差別された者を神の愛に包容してくださるために.

第一朗読では,全包容的な神の愛について,こう宣言されています:「そも,主の力は偉大であり,謙虚な者らによって讃えられる」[ ὅτι μεγάλη ἡ δυναστεία τοῦ κυρίου, καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ταπεινῶν δοξάζεται ] (Si 3,20). 

「へりくだる者,謙虚な者」と訳され得る ταπεινός は,形容詞としては「低い」であり,人について用いられるときは「力や地位や評価の低い者」です.つまり,まずは,社会的に差別された者のことであり,そして次いで,彼ら・彼女らと同じように身を低める者のことです.

また,部分的に伝えられている「シラ書」のヘブライ語原文のフランス語訳は Car grande est la miséricorde de Dieu, aux humbles il dévoile son secret [そも,神の慈しみは大きく,神は謙虚な者らに御自身の秘密を啓かす]です.

とすると,こう読むことができます:主の慈しみは大きく,主は,差別された者らへ神の愛を打ち明け,差別された者らによって讃えられる.

それを受けて,福音朗読では,イェスはこう断言します : ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ὑψῶν ἑαυτὸν ταπεινωθήσεται καὶ ὁ ταπεινῶν ἑαυτὸν ὑψωθήσεται [そも,誰しも,身を高める者は低められ,かつ,身を低める者は高められるだろう] (Lc 14,11).

つまり,差別する者は低められ,差別された者は高められる.なぜなら,差別する者は神の愛に気づかず,而して,差別された者にこそ神の愛は打ち明けられるからです.

さらに,イェスはこう勧めます:「而して,宴を催すなら,貧しい人々,手や足の不自由な人々,目の見えない人々を招きなさい.されば,あなたは幸いとなろう」 (Lc 14,13-14).

差別された人々を神の愛の宴に招きなさい,そうすれば祝福されるだろう.

つまり,イェス様は予め LGBT 特別ミサを祝福してくださっています.

御ミサの後の分かち合いの集いでは,小宇佐神父様は,教会の教えにも時代や文化に制約されたところがあるので,すべてを鵜呑みにするのではなく,むしろ,教会が差別する側に立つことがないよう,何事にも制約されない普遍的な神のメッセージを読み取ることが大切だ,と語ってくださいました.また,参加者のなかには,積極的に御自身の信仰の歩みについて語ってくださる方もいらっしゃいました.有意義な分かち合いをすることができたと思います.

第三回 LGBT 特別ミサは,9月25日午後に予定されています.多くの方の参加をお待ちしています.

ルカ小笠原晋也

2016年8月29日月曜日

LGBT+ 特別ミサのお知らせ: 第三回,2016年09月25日

LGBT+ の人々だけのために特別に立てていただく御ミサの第三回が,9月25日(日曜日)13:30 から約一時間,都内で行われます.

普段,小教区教会の通常の御ミサに参加しづらいと感じている方も,気がねなく聖体拝領や祝福にお与りください.

今回司式してくださるのは,サレジオ修道会の出版部門ドン・ボスコ社代表,月刊「カトリック生活」誌編集長の関谷義樹神父様 SDB です.


御ミサ終了後,よろしければ,分かち合いの集いにも御参加ください.1 - 2時間の予定です.参加は任意です.

御ミサ会場となるお御堂には13時からお入りいただけます.

参加可能なのは,御自身 LGBT+ である方々のみです.

カトリックの洗礼を受けている必要はありません.カトリック信徒の方は勿論のこと,カトリック以外に正教会,聖公会,プロテスタントの方でも,あるいは,キリスト教信仰に関心をお持ちの未受洗の方でも,御自身 LGBT+ であり,かつ,神の愛の恵みに与りたいとお望みである方は,参加可能です.

ただし,世話役として,LGBT カトリック・ジャパン共同代表,ルカ小笠原晋也ペトロ宮野亨,ならびに両人の配偶者など,幾人かの ally がお手伝いのために参加いたします.

参加なさりたい方は,必ず事前に e-mail :


lgbtcj@gmail.com 

へお申し込みください会場入口で,e-mail address にもとづき,お申し込みくださった方か否かを確認させていただきます.

お名前は,匿名でも結構です.使用なさる e-mail address も,必ずしも普段お使いのものではなく,Gmail などに新たに作った申込専用の account のものでも構いません.その方が匿名性が高まります.ただし,LGBT カトリック・ジャパン (lgbtcj@gmail.com) からの御案内を受信できるようにしてください.

e-mail をお使いでない方は,電話でお申し込みください.申込先は

090-1650-2207(ルカ小笠原晋也),または

080-1307-3910(ペトロ宮野亨)

その際,お名前をお尋ねしますが,本名でなくても結構です.会場でお申し込みくださった方かどうかを確認させていただくためだけのものです.

ミサ後の分かち合いの集いでも,匿名のままでも結構です.

参加をお申し込みくださった方々には,御ミサが行われる場所をお伝えします.都内の山手線内です.

なお,会場使用献金ならびにミサ司式献金を,それぞれ500円以上(計1000円以上)お願いいたします.

お申し込みをお待ちしております.


なお,御参考までに,この blog の過去の記事へのリンクを貼っておきます:


2015年08月18日,虹の慈しみのイェス様


2016年8月28日日曜日

LGBT and the Catholic Doctrine – a contribution to a better inclusion of LGBT people to the Catholic Church

LGBT and the Catholic Doctrine

a contribution to a better inclusion of LGBT people to the Catholic Church


Luke S. OGASAWARA (Lacanian psychoanalyst, pro-LGBT activist, co-founder of the LGBT Catholic Japan)


Summary :


The foundation of the Catholic Church is God’s love that excludes nobody but includes everybody. On that standpoint of the all-inclusive love of God we develop in the present paper some critical arguments against traditional prejudices of the Catholic Church on sexual minority. And we add some Lacanian discussions on this subject.



Table of contents



§ 1. Introduction


§ 2. Traditional attitudes of the Catholic Church towards LGBT people

§ 2.1. Traditional attitudes of the Catholic Church towards homosexuality

§ 2.2. Opinions of the Catholic Church about transgenderism


§ 3. The new pastoral orientation of Pope Francis for homosexual people


§ 4. Prejudices of the Catholic Church about LGBT problems

§ 4.1. Homosexuality as we understand it now

§ 4.2. Homosexuality and the Bible
§ 4.2.1. Problems of sexual acts between men in the Old Testament
§ 4.2.2. Problems of sexual acts between same-sex persons in the New Testament

§ 4.3. Homosexual relationships believed to be mere pleasure-seeking without possible procreation

§ 4.4. The myth of complementarity between both sexes

§ 4.5. The question of « the truth of one’s own sex » posed by the transgenderism


§ 5. Conclusion




§ 1. Introduction


The Bible says « so God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him ; male and female he created them », but doesn’t tells us what a man is and what a woman is in their essentiality. There is only supposed a naïve gender binarism of human being.

In fact the reality of human sexuality can not be reduced to such a naïveness : there exist varieties of sexual minority, such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer, etc.

To simplify accronymic appellation, we’d like to use here the word LGBT for all the possible varieties of sexual minority on the supposition that the term transgender can mean « beyond the gender binarism ».

And we presume here also that the category of LGBT excludes paedophilic homosexuality which implies possibilities of child sexual abuse. Paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder, while LGBTs as such are not belonging to any psychopathological condition.



§ 2. Traditional attitudes of the Catholic Church towards LGBT people


§ 2.1. Traditional attitudes of the Catholic Church towards homosexual persons

Traditional opinions of the Catholic Church on the subject of homosexuality are resumed in the paragraph nº 2357 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) :

Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that « homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered ». They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

And in the next paragraph nº 2358, they say :

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. Their homosexual conditon is not of their own choice. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

An important remark : the phrase « Ils ne choisissent pas leur condition homosexuelle » [ Their homosexual conditon is not of their own choice ] which you can read in the French edition of the CCC is omitted in the English version presented at the web site of the Holy See.

In fact no one – neither heterosexuals nor persons of sexual minority – can choose intentionally one’s own sexuality which is a given existential condition for anyone.

We must underline that fact to refute prejudiced arguments saying LGBT conditions are problems of taste or preference.

Anyway, if you read the two consecutive paragraphs quoted above, you cannot but conclude that the Catholic Church will accept homosexual persons only to condemn them irredeemably for their sexuality so that they can find no possibility of salvation in the Catholic Church.


§ 2.2. Opinions of the Catholic Church about transgenderism

Most of conservative Christians have opinion that medical procedures of sex reassignment are inadmissible because they mutilate or modify unjustifiedly the human body given by God so that they are blasphemous to the divine creation.

Till now the Catholic Church has formulated no general judgement on the subject of transgenderism and sex reassignment treatments.

We know only one case of transsexual person to whom Vatican addressed this official condemnation : « the transsexual behavior reveals publicly an attitude opposite to the moral requirement of solving one’s own problem of sexual identity according to the truth of one’s own sex » [ emphasized by the quoter ].

This is the case of Mr Alexander Salinas, a transsexual man, that is, he was born female ontically, but is a man ontologically. He underwent SRS for treatment of this ontological dissociation of his sexuality.

In July 2015, his sisters asked him to be godfather for their sons, and he was willing to assume the rôle in the baptismal ceremony for his nephews. But the parish priest didn’t allow him to do so.

This problem induced a lot of debates in Spanish media so that Bishop Rafael Zornoza Boy of the diocese of Cádiz and Ceuta consulted the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) . The judgement in the name of Cardinal Gerhard Müller, Prefect of the CDF, was published in the official communiqué of Bishop Zornoza dated the 1st September 2015 : 


As quoted above, the cardinal said Mr Salinas cannot be admitted as godparent of his nephews because « his transsexual behavior reveals publicly an attitude opposite to the moral requirement of solving his own problem of sexual identity according to the truth of his own sex ».

This negative answer of Vatican induced a breakaway of Mr Salinas from the Catholic Church – as a matter of course, because the Church didn’t recognize the truth of his sex.



§ 3. The new pastoral orientation of Pope Francis for homosexual people


Though he daren’t go so far as blessing same-sex marriage to avoid an irremediable schism within the Catholic Church, Pope Francis has been presenting since his election to the Holy See much more inclusive orientation of pastoral care for homosexual persons.

His first words on the subject of homosexuality he uttered in the press conference during the return flight from Rio de Janeiro the 28th July 2013 are well known :

« Se una persona è gay e cerca il Signore e ha buona volontà, ma chi sono io per giudicarla ? »

[ If someone is gay and is searching for the Lord and has good will, then who am I to judge him ? ]

In the interview published in a Jesuite review La Civilità Cattolica in August 2013, Pope Francis developed a bit more :

« Se una persona omosessuale è di buona volontà ed è in cerca di Dio, io non sono nessuno per giudicarla. (...) Una volta una persona, in maniera provocatoria, mi chiese se approvavo l’omosessualità. Io allora le risposi con un’altra domanda : ‹ Dimmi : Dio, quando guarda a una persona omosessuale, ne approva l’esistenza con affetto o la respinge condannandola ? › Bisogna sempre considerare la persona. Qui entriamo nel mistero dell’uomo. Nella vita Dio accompagna le persone, e noi dobbiamo accompagnarle a partire dalla loro condizione. Bisogna accompagnare con misericordia. »

[ If a homosexual person is of good will and is in search of God, I am no one to judge him. (...) One day a person asked me in a provocative manner if I approve homosexuality. I responded to him with another question : « Tell me : when God looks at a homosexual person, does He approve his existence with affection or reject him with condemnation ? » We must always respect the person as he is. That is, we have to do with the mystery of human being. God accompanies people in their life, and we must accompany them according to their condition. We must accompany them with mercy ].

We see that Pope Francis displaced the emphasis away from the nº 2357 of the CCC onto the nº 2358. Only with that he has brought to LGBT people in the whole world bright hope of salvation.

We would say that the principle of Francis’ pastoral orientation is the christocentrism which has on the centre of the doctrine the all-inclusive love of God who accompanies each of us mercifully, in a clear difference to the legalism which can be sometimes cruel and merciless in its rigid universalism.

Then, in the paragraph nº 250 of his second Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia published in April 2016, Pope Francis says this :

The Church makes her own the attitude of the Lord Jesus, who offers his boundless love to each person without exception. During the Synod, we discussed the situation of families who are living the experience of having inside persons with homosexual tendency, a situation that is not easy either for parents or for children. We would like before all else to reaffirm that every person, regardless of sexual orientation, ought to be respected in his or her dignity and to be welcomed with respect, with care of avoiding « any mark of unjust discrimination » (CCC nº 2358) and particularly any form of aggression and violence. In regard of such families it is important to assure them that we will accompany them in order that those who manifest the homosexual tendency can receive the assistance they need to understand and fully carry out God’s will in their lives.

Thus in that official document he affirmed formally what he said in the interviews quoted above.

And more recently, on the 26th June 2016, Pope Francis said in the press conference during the return flight from Armenia that Christians should seek forgiveness from homosexual people for the manner they had treated them.

To the journalist who asked him what he thinks of the remarks of Cardinal Reinhard Marx who said that the Catholic Church should apologise to gay people for having marginalised them and of a possible responsibility of the Church for the hatred towards homosexuals, Pope Francis answered :

I will repeat what I said during my first trip [ to Rio de Janeiro in July 2013 ], and I also repeat what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, namely that they should not be discriminated against, that they should be shown respect and given pastoral assistance. (...)

If the problem is that a person is so inclined [ that is, homosexual ], and with good will seeks God, who are we to judge him or her ? We should be helpful to them, in accordance with the teaching of the Catechism. (...)

I think that the Church should apologize not only to those who are gay and have been offended, but also to the poor, to women and to children exploited in the workplace, and for having blessed so many weapons.

The Church should apologize for all the times she has not acted.

And when I say « the Church », I mean Christians. The Church is holy, we are sinners ! (...)

As Christians we should apologize over and over again. Forgiveness and not only excuses ! « Forgive me, Lord ! » These are words we forget to say. (...)

We are all saints because we have the Holy Spirit in us, but we are all of us sinners. Myself first. (...) Not just apologies, but forgiveness !

Thus we see that Pope Francis has raised in front of the Catholic Church the standard of christocentrism which welcomes into the all-inclusive love of God everybody without exception, in defiance of legalistic condemnation of homosexuality which has been traditional in the doctrine.

We’d like to make our own this attitude of Pope Francis who rejects any discrimination and any hatred.

Only he has not yet discussed officially problems posed by transgenderism, and on the subject of the same-sex marriage he has done nothing more than reiterating the conservative negative opinion.

We’d like to pray for our Church so that she may stay always faithful to the love of God who excludes nobody but includes everybody.



§ 4. Prejudices of the Catholic Church about LGBT problems


As far as the Catholic Church continues her traditional condemnation of homosexuality and her disappoval of medical treatments for sex reassignment, she continues inevitably alienating LGBT people from possibilities of salvation offered by our Lord. Is it in accordance with the all-inclusive love of God ? No, evidently.

So we’d like to point out some persistent prejudices of the Catholic doctrine as regards LGBT problems :

1) the sexual behaviours between same-sex persons condemned in the Bible are not those of homosexual couples ;

2) those who disapprove homosexuality by reason that homosexual relationships are only pleasure-seeking without possible procreation ignore the fact that a homosexual couple can love each other just as a heterosexual couple can do so and consider the procreation only from the biological point of view in neglect of its theological significance ;

3) the notion of « complementarity between the two sexes » implied in the idea that a heterosexual couple united by God becomes « one flesh » is nothing but a mythical prejudice ;

4) « the truth of one’s own sex » brought into question by transgenderism is not the sex determined biologically, but the sex really given by God, that is the ontological gender identity.


§ 4.1. Homosexuality as we understand it now

The word homosexuality is not belonging to the Bible vocabulary nor to the theological terminology.

The term homosexuality is anglicisation of the German word Homosexualität which was first neologised in the later half of the 19th century at the same time as and in opposition to that of Heterosexualität.

It was took up by a German psychiatrist, Richard von Krafft-Ebing (1840-1902), who made from psychopathologic and forensic points of view the first detailed and systematic studies of the specific form of variations of psychosexual behaviours he named homosexuality in his famous work Psychopathia sexualis the first edition of which was published in 1886.

In his book he insisted already on decriminalisation of homosexual acts because he considered that homosexuality is an innate condition for which homosexual persons themselves cannot be responsible.

Most of the developed countries decriminalised homosexual acts during the 1980s and 1990s, while ca. seventy countries most of them located in Asia and Africa have still laws criminalising homosexuality.

In the field of psychiatry the category of homosexuality was depathologised in the 1970s by reason that homosexuality per se cannnot be regarded as one of mental disorders « causing regularly subjective distress or associated with generalized impairment in social effectiveness of functioning » (cf. DSM-III).

Thus decriminalised and depathologised the homosexuality as we understand it now implies a relationship between persons of the same sex attracted one to another (one-sidedly or mutually) affectionately and erotically so that they may form a stable and faithful couple in favorable conditions similar to those where a heterosexual couple can live a conjugal life.


§ 4.2. Homosexuality and the Bible

§ 4.2.1. Problems of sexual acts between men in the Old Testament

As far as we understand now under the term homosexuality a relationship between persons of the same sex attracted one to another affectionately and erotically so that they may form a stable and faithful couple in favorable conditions similar to those where a heterosexual couple can live a conjugal life, the sexual acts between men alluded to or mentioned as such in some passages of the Old Testament cannot be regarded as homosexual acts.

Primo the so-called sin of Sodom alluded to in Genesis 19,1-29 consists in fact in sexual violence done by a heterosexual man against another man for purposes of domination, agression, destruction, humiliation, etc. Such violent behaviours might bring about some satisfaction of agressive or destructive impulses, but what matters is nothing like affectionate sexual relationships between gay persons.

Secundo the interdiction formulated in Leviticus 18,22 and 20,13, read in the context of law of holiness, concerns impulsive act of rape or adultery committed by a heterosexual man against another man whom he takes as sexual object in place of a woman because no woman is in his dispotion at the moment of the act. In this case too, it has nothing to do with gay relationships as we understand them now.

Tertio et ultimo we find some mentions in Deuteronomy 23,18 or in 1 Kings 14,24 to sacred prostitutions in the cult of Baal as symbolic acts of seeding the mother earth destined to assure fecundity, and it is suggested that there are male sacred prostitutes as well as female ones. Such prostitutions are of course interdicted in Israel because they imply worships of gods other than the Lord. Anyway those who « lie with » male sacred prostitutes are heterosexual men. Such sexual acts between men have also nothing to do with gay relationships in our actual society.

Thus if we read those veterotestamentary passages in question in their precise contexts we find there no interdiction nor no condemnation of the sexual behaviour we call actually homosexuality.


§ 4.2.2. Problems of sexual acts between same-sex persons in the New Testament

As to the passages of the Pauline Epistles also where same-sex coitus is condemned, we must read them in their contexts.

First of all, what does saint Paul say in his Epistle to the Romans ?

Just after having formulated that ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται [ who by faith is righteous shall live in eternal life ] (1,17), he discusses in the following verses (1,18-32) the opposite cases, that is, those who are unrighteous [ ἀδικία ] because of ungodliness [ ἀσέβεια ] and idolatry [ ἀλλάσσειν τὴν δόξαν τοῦ ἀφθάρτου θεοῦ ἐν ὁμοιώματι εἰκόνος φθαρτοῦ ἀνθρώπου... ; σεβάζεσθαι καὶ λατρεύειν τῇ κτίσει παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα ].

Such people receive anger of God [ ὀργὴ θεοῦ ] who gives them over in desires of their hearts [ ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις τῶν καρδιῶν αὐτῶν ] to filthy things [ ἀκαθαρσία ] and to shameful passions [ πάθη ἀτιμίας ] so that they and their women have sexual relationships with persons of the same sex.

Thus we see that what saint Paul is condemning is same-sex relationships implying impulsive sexual acts such as those interdicted in Leviticus 18,22 and 20,13. For the words ἀδικία and ἀκαθαρσία are indicating transgression of the law of holiness.

And if they transgress the law of holiness, it’s because they are idolators who don’t believe in God.

That is, if they believe in God, they cannot be blamable for transgression of the Levitical laws even if they are gay, exactly as Pope Francis said : « if a homosexual person is of good will and is in search of God, I am no one to judge him ».

On the contrary, if someone who is unrighteous because of idolatry has a heterosexual coitus as he or she is driven by his or her sexual impulse, he or she is condemnable for adultery.

Other than in his Epistle to the Romans, it is said that saint Paul condemns gays in 1 Corinthians 6,9 and in 1 Timothy 1,10.

Certainly we find there the word homosexual in English translations. But in the original Greek text, the word in question is not σοδομίτης nor παιδεραστής, but ἀρσενοκοίτης which means literally « man who lies with a man », that is, one who is concerned in the Levitic interdiction : « μετά ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικείαν ».

Thus if we read the words of saint Paul in their contexts, we find that his condemnations are destined to heterosexual men comitting impulsive sexual acts with a man as ersatz woman. And saint Paul could have in mind also cases of those who lie with male sacred prostitutes in paganistic cults.

Anyway with the term ἀρσενοκοίτης saint Paul cannot have thought of gay people as they are in our actual society.

So we can conclude that neither in the Old Testament nor in the New Testament we find an interdiction or a condemnation concerning homosexuality as we understand it actually.

Those who read in the Bible some negative thoughts about homosexuality are only misinterpreting words of the Torah and of the Apostle because of their discriminatory prejudices full of hate against LGBT people.


§ 4.3. Homosexual relationships believed to be mere pleasure-seeking without possible procreation

Those who disapprove homosexuality by reason that same-sex relationships are only pleasure-seeking with no possibility of procreation ignore the fact that a homosexual couple can love each other just as a heterosexual couple do so and consider also procreation only from biological point of view.

In fact those who believe that homosexual relationships are mere pleasure-seeking with no possible procreation are inferring erroneously that homosexual relationships are mere pleasure-seeking because they have no possilibity of procreation.

Certainly a same-sex relationship cannot imply a procreation in biological sense. But that doesn’t mean necessarily that it’s a mere pleasure-seeking out of morality.

Indeed a homosexual couple can love each other just in the manner of heterosexual love exhorted by Pope Francis in the nº 125 of Amoris Laetitia :

Furthermore marriage is a friendship which includes notes proper to a passion, but it is a passion always directed to an ever more stable and intense union. For « marriage is not instituted solely for the procreation », but in order that mutual love « may be expressed in its rectitude, progress and flower » (Gaudium et Spes, nº 50). This particular friendship between a man and a woman acquires an all-encompassing character only within the conjugal union. Precisely as all-encompassing, this union is also exclusive, faithful and open to procreation. The couple shares everything – even sexuality too – always in mutual respect. To express that situation the Second Vatican Council said that « such a love, bringing together the human and the divine, leads the partners to a free and mutual self-giving which is manifested in feelings and gestures of tenderness and permeating their entire life » (Gaudium et Spes, n.49).

That is proved by a multitude of homosexual couples in countries where same-sex marriage is already legalised.

As to the problem of procreation, we should ask to ourselves what is procreation for us Catholics.

For us Catholics, procreation means not only biological reproduction of human beings, but more essentially it consists in engendering new generations of Catholics by transmitting our faith to children who may be our own or adoptive or simply those children who happen to see and hear us in a certain situation.

Thus if a same-sex couple adopts a child and brings him or her up with love and faith so as to transmit to him or her God’s love, that is also a procreation – a spiritual procreation if you like – which is no less procreation than a procreation by a heterosexual couple.

In fact, in countries where child adoption by same-sex couple is legalised, most of psychological or sociological studies have found no significant difference in wellbeing between children of homosexual couples and those of heterosexual couples : cf. for example, Parent-reported measures of child health and wellbeing in same-sex parent families : a cross-sectional survey



§ 4.4. The myth of complementarity between both sexes

The Catholic Church believes heterosexual relationship should be privileged against homosexual one because of complementarity between man and woman, as they say in the nº 372 of the CCC :

Man and woman are made « for each other » – not that God left them « half-made » and « incomplete » : He created them for a communion of persons, in which each can be « helpmate » to the other, for they are equal as persons and complementary as masculine and feminine. In marriage God unites them in such a way that, by forming « one flesh », they can transmit human life : « Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth ». By transmitting human life to their descendants, man and woman as spouses and parents co-operate in a unique way in the Creator’s work. (Underlined by the quoter.)

In the nº 6 of his Letter to the bishops of the Catholic Church on the pastoral care of homosexual persons dated the 1st October 1986, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, present Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, explains the significance of complementarity between both sexes in this manner :

The theology of Creation we find in Genesis provides us the fundamental point of view for understanding adequately the problems posed by homosexuality. God, in his infinite wisdom and his omnipotent love, calls into existence the whole reality as reflection of his goodness. He creates human beings as man and woman in his own image and likeness. Therefore human beings are creatures of God who are called to reflect, in the complementarity of the sexes, the inner unity of the Creator. They accomplish this task in a special way when they cooperate with Him in transmission of life by giving themselves to each other in marriage. (Underlined by the quoter.)

Thus they believe that if heterosexuality is privileged against homosexuality it is because the complementarity of heterosexual couple forming « one flesh » is a reflection and a representation of the essential Oneness of God as it is formulated in Deuteronomy 6,4 : « Hear, O Israel ! The Lord our God is the Lord One ».

Now what is the complementarity between man and woman if we reconsider it in its essentiality ? Is it a matter of the anatomy and the physiology of genital organs ? That seems a rather rough basis for our « theology of Creation », and one that does not enable us to « under-stand adequately the problems posed » not only by homosexuality, but by sexuality as such.

According to Lacanian psychoanalysis the complementarity between the sexes is in fact impossible, as Jacques Lacan has formulated it in a seemingly paradoxical manner : « il n’y a pas de rapport sexuel » (there is no sexual relationship). That is, genital jouissance (satisfaction of sexual drive as such) which is naïvely supposed to be realizable in genital maturity at the end of libidinal development is in fact impossible because all we have in our sexual reality is nothing more than various forms of non-genital libidinal fixation. A man has relationships only with objects on which libido is fixed and which are essentially fetishes hindering any directly unifying communion with the being of a woman. A woman either makes herself such a fetish or, if she dare abolish herself as fetish, might fall into mystic ecstasy as Saint Teresa of Avila did, but in such cases her partner is no longer a male human being but God Himself. So sexual complementarity between the sexes is nothing more than a myth however universal it may be.


Certainly clinical work of psychoanalysis consists in dissolving non-genital libidinal fixation, but at its end it doesn’t make possible the genital communion between the sexes which is impossible in principle. What will be revealed at the end of psychoanalytical experience is not a phallus as it was the case in ancient mystery, but the very lack of phallus, that is, the hole of what Freud calls castration, or, if we quote Heideggerian terminology, the cleared field of the truth of Being [ die Lichtung der Wahrheit des Seyns ].

Therefore we cannot privilege heterosexual relationship against homosexual one. The sexual complementarity is impossible both in homosexual and in heterosexual relationships.

Rather we would say that what could « reflect the inner unity of the Creator » is not the genital complementarity between the sexes, but the unifying love, whether heterosexual or homosexual, as it is explained in the nº 49 of Gaudium et spes :

When two persons love each other sincerely, faithfully and passionately, « the Lord has judged this love worthy to be healed, perfected and elevated with special gifts of grace and charity. Such love, associating the human and the divine, leads the spouses to a free and mutual gift of themselves... »

If two persons, whether heterosexual or homosexual, love each other in such an unifying love, then there is nothing that would hinder us from saying that their love is the sign par excellence of the love of the Lord One.


§ 4.5. The question of « the truth of one’s own sex » posed by transgenderism

It is known that transgender people live their sexuality opposite to their anatomico-physiological sex as soon as they begin to live in language, that is, as early as at the age of one year or two.

For example, a mother recalls her child with a male body and a female mind began to prefer at the age of two years to play with dolls and to be dressed up as a girl. Or a transgender man who is born female with male mind says in his autobiography that before SRS he was living as if he had always been put in a full-body costume of woman.

Let us pose to ourselves a question : can transgenderism be reduced to a dissociation between biological sex and psychological sex ? Can we think of the problem of transgenderism adequately in terms of mind-body dualism ?

We don’t think so because in such a perspective of mind-body dichotomy the so called conversion therapies are proposed to “correct” erroneous cognition transgender people have of their own sexuality so that their subjective feeling may coincide with the physical « truth of their own sex ».

In order to overcome this inadequate understanding we formulate the essential problem posed by the fact of transgenderism in this manner : transgenderism consists in ontological dissociation of ontic sex and ontological sexuality, so that an ontically male person is ontologically feminine and/or that an ontically female person is ontologically masculine. 

And we say that « the truth of one’s own sex » resides not in the ontic sex but in the ontological sexuality.

From such an ontological point of view we can find an equivalent dissociation concerning our being formulated by saint Paul in 1 Corinthians 15,42-44 :

So also is the resurrection of the dead : It is sown in corruption ; it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor ; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness ; it is raised in power. It is sown an animal body [ σῶμα ψυχικόν ] ; it is raised a spiritual body [ σῶμα πνευματικόν ]. There is an animal body [ σῶμα ψυχικόν ], and there is a spiritual body [ σῶμα πνευματικόν ].

Ontic sex against ontological sexuality on the one hand, and σῶμα ψυχικόν against σῶμα πνευματικόν on the other hand : those two distinctions present an illuminating analogy. We say that « the truth of one’s own sex» is not on the side of ontic sex and σῶμα ψυχικόν, but on the side of ontological sexuality and σῶμα πνευματικόν, because the truth of God’s creation resides on the latter side.

Sex reassignment surgery is not then an artificial procedure blasphemously damaging one’s god-given body, but rather it respects the truth of the divine creation because it modifies ontic σῶμα ψυχικόν only to make it consistent with ontological σῶμα πνευματικόν.

Anyway SRS must be admitted as far as it can serve for salvation of transgender people who could commit auto-mutilation or even suicide because of the intolerable dysphoria they suffer from their very early childhood.

As Pope Francis said it on homosexual people, we could say : if someone is transgender and is searching for the Lord and has good will, then who are we to blame him or her for appropriate SRS or endocrinological treatments ?

Finally I’d like to answer briefly to the question : what determines the ontological sexuality, i.e. the truth of one’s own sex ? A phallus – provided not ontically but ontologically.

To discuss adequately the problem we must firstly distinguish according to Heideggerian topology ontic locus and ontological locality [ die Ortschaft der Wahrheit des Seyns ]. The latter is ex-sistent [ ek-sistent ] to the former. This distinction is what Heidegger calls ontological difference [ die ontologische Differenz ].

In this topological perspective, if you ask whether God exists or not, you are in an ontological confusion. God cannot be situated in the ontic locus. The place of God is the ontological locality. But that doesn’t mean that God ex-sists as Name-of-the-Father in the ontological locality. The true Name-of-the-Father is the impossible Name of the Lord. The so-called Tetragrammaton is only a seeming of His true Name which is not only impossible to pronounce but also impossible to write as such. It doesn’t stop not being written. Not to stop not being written : that is Lacanian definition of « impossible ». So God as pure Spirit without difference of the sexes as it is said in the CCC (nº 370), or, we would say, God as pure Being (Seyn in Heidegger’s terminology or manque-à-être, lack-of-being, in Lacan’s terminology) is the vacant ontological locality itself which is ex-sistent to the ontic locus where Seiendes (things which are there) exsists.

Then we can define ontological sexuality in following terms : If in the ontological locality of pure Being of a human being a phallus ex-sists, this human being is ontologically masculine. On the contrary, if in the locality of pure Being no phallus ex-sists, this human being is ontologically feminine.

Lacan says a bit more on this subject, but I suppose that’ll be too much here.



§ 5. Conclusion

The foundation of the Catholic Church is God’s love that excludes nobody but includes everybody.

On that standpoint of the all-inclusive love of God we have developed in the present paper some critical arguments against traditional prejudices of the Catholic Church on sexual minority.

We render thanks to God who has the mercy of having sent us a pastor like Pope Francis who has abandoned traditional condemnations in order to welcome LGBT people into the Church in a more inclusive and more benevolent manner. May he be praised as the one who opened first the doors of the Church widely and generously to the excluded minority to invite them to the feast of the Lord.

And we pray God that the Church may bless without reservation same-sex marriage and all the medical treatments necessary for transgender people.


in Tokyo, the 28th August 2016