Other Sheep - Multicultural Ministries with Sexual Minorities

Book Reviews

The New Presbyterian Catechisms, approved for 5-year study and use by the Presbyterian
General Assembly, 1998, in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Review by Rev. Dr. Tom Hanks.

What is the Chief End of Person? Conspiracy or Opportunity?

Whatever our evaluations of the documents as a whole, our headline should be the exposition of the
9th Commandment in the Study (Larger) Catechism:

Question 115. Does this commandment forbid racism and other forms of negative
stereotyping?

"Yes. In forbidding false witness against my neighbor, God forbids me to be prejudiced against
people who belong to any vulnerable, different or disfavored social group. Jews, women,
homosexuals, racial and ethnic minorities, and national enemies are among those who have suffered
terribly from being subjected to the slurs of social prejudice. Negative stereotyping is a form of
falsehood that invites actions of humiliation, abuse, and violence as forbidden by the commandment
against murder." [Italics mine].

This, the only reference in the documents to sexual minorities, is thus totally favorable and
constitutes a major paradigm shift in the way homosexuality is viewed by the church. For years we
have been plagued with statements that include homosexuals in the old paradigm: "alcoholics, drug
addicts and homosexuals."

However, now in the new catechism, homosexuals are linked with racial minorities and recognized as
oppressed victims of negative stereotyping and the slurs of social prejudice that foments violence
and murder.

One presbytery executive tells me that in his presbytery of some 45 churches only two churches did
the study of human sexuality agreed upon in GA actions. Nationwide less than 20% of our churches
did the required study. In such contexts, where study has scarcely begun, but where the catechisms
may be used, Question 115 provides us with an excellent platform to assure recalcitrant Less Light
churches: they can forget about studying homosexuals (the much desired sabbatical rest--but
without the six days work). However, we need to start studying our homophobia and speech patterns
that have fomented violence and murder of sexual minorities. At last, on the basis of church
documents approved for study and use, we can become proactive and not simply defensive. Every
example of negative stereotyping can now be confronted and denounced with the citation from the
Catechism. We can call people to repent of their homophobia instead of their homosexuality. And we
might consider examining pastors and other church leaders to see if their unrepentant persistence in
the sin of negative stereotyping disqualifies them from holding office. Candidates for ordination might
be questioned regarding their discourse regarding sexual minorities instead of inquiring into their
sexual orientation and acts.

The recent affirmation by African American pastors, together with the linking of negative stereotyping
of homosexuals with racism in the Catechism also provides us with an opportunity to become
proactive and very intentional in linking More Light Presbyterians with the Presbyterian Black
Caucus. The More Light Update and Resource Packets should include specific literature on African
American Sexual Minorities and make clear the support of black Christian leaders (Coretta Scott
King, Jesse Jackson, Bishop Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela with the South African Constitution) in
opposing racism and homophobia.

General Comments in Catechetical Order

After the introductory questions, The Study Catechism follows the classical trilogy of the Apostles’
Creed, the Ten commandments and the Lord’s Prayer. The First Catechism does not include the
Apostle’s Creed verbatim, but includes its general narrative content.

The heavy traditional dependence on the Apostle’s Creed gives the mistaken impression that the
much later document has apostolic authority, leaps from the Virgin Birth to
Jesus’ death, omitting all reference to Jesus’ ministry/praxis, and includes the highly problematic
phrase about the descent into Hell. The Virgin Birth, despite its lowly estate in Biblical teaching (only
Mat and Luke) is thus elevated to the rank of a fundamental doctrine and the common cultural and
neo-platonic notion that human sexuality is always dirty is re-enforced for modern Presbyterians.
Such negatives are to some degree counterbalanced by sophisticated Barthian interpretation (spin)
of the doctrines.

The focus on the Ten Commandments as a charter of liberty has the advantage of rooting
Christian praxis in God’s liberating act in the Exodus and making heterosexual males the main
concern regarding sexual sin (adultery and coveting the neighbor’s wife). This undercuts any
tendency to make homoerotic acts God’s main concern in the sin area. The prohibitions in Leviticus
of male-male anal sex (before condoms) does not enter the picture. The impression is even given
that God’s Law is to be equated with the Ten commandments (FC 18). Actually, by Jewish reckoning
the Pentateuch contains 613 commandments and only two of them might be construed as directed
specifically toward homosexual males. As someone has observed this only goes to show that
heterosexuals simply need more supervision, but such subtleties do not surface in these documents.

The exposition of the Lord’s Prayer preserves the traditional non-inclusive reference to Our Father,
and thus the tilt toward patriarchy, but repeated efforts are made to avoid the extremes in the
traditional language and theology. Matthew’s version of the Lord’s Prayer is followed, with no
acknowledgment of the significantly different and more original Lucan version. Also the Textus
Receptus addition of the concluding doxology (from 1 Chron. 29:11,13) is included. Such
traditionalism in the use of classical trilogy framework, however, is counterbalanced to a
considerable extent by the often sophisticated Barthian exposition.

In addition to the prohibition of racism and other forms of negative stereotyping cited above, the
catechism authors point to four significant areas where the Study Catechism moves beyond the
traditional trilogy and previous reformed catechisms:

Feminism (Q. 11-13): God is Father, but not male.

Modern Science (Q. 27): To be accepted.

Is Christianity the only true religion? (See Q. 50-52).

Modern critical biblical scholarship (Q. 61). Also now kosher.

Unfortunately, however, the praxis does not consistently glorify the theory. Scientific Biblical
scholarship is not only ignored but contradicted by the arbitrary preference for Matthew’s version of
the Lord’s Prayer in the Textus Receptus. Perhaps more seriously, the Fallö functions as a major
theological category with no indication of anything beyond the pre-scientific notion of a literal Adam
and Eve in a historical (time-space) "fall" shortly after their supposed creation in 4004 B.C. (FC Q.
10; SC Q. 20).
From reading the frequent allusions to the mysterious "Fall" readers steeped in Flood geology and
Creation "science" might well conclude that the modern "science" to be accepted is their lunatic
fringe version. A catechism that refers repeatedly to the "Fall" and never mentions evolution lends
itself well to such Fundamentalist manipulations. Probably most authors intended a sophisticated
Barthian understanding of the "fall". But a "fall" that never happened in history utterly fails to explain
the universality of human sinfulness. Here the authors might better have followed a wise southern
dictum in educational theory: don’t shake out more snakes than you can kill (especially within the
genre restraints of a catechism.). Perhaps during our five years study of the catechisms we will
forget about the Fall and affirm that God our Creator worked through the evolutionary process. That
would at least catch us up with the author of Genesis 2-3, who spoke simply of disobedience and not
of any Fall. The authors may suppose that educated Presbyterians would never perpetrate such a
hermeneutical faux pas with their document. But those of us who have witnessed (suffered through)
years of purported "study" of homosexuality, where ExGay quackery from a few lunatic fringe
Fundamentalists is put on par with an overwhelming scientific consensus, and where homosexuality
is regularly equated with sexual "fallenness," "brokenness", sexual addiction, promiscuity and child
abuse will not be so optimistic about the "scientific" lenses that will be employed in Less Light
churches.

Often, however, the Barthian spin on Westminster theology proves a helpful corrective. Instead
beginning with the Bible, as in the Westminster Confession, the SC (Q. 56) quotes the Barmen
confession: "Jesus Christ as he is attested for us in the Holy Scripture is the one Word of God whom
we have to hear, and whom we have to trust and obey in life and in death". The authors of Barmen
could not have known that when they wrote (May 30, 1934), the first of tens of thousands of
homosexuals would soon be executed (July 1, 1934), shortly to be followed by other minorities along
with six million Jews in the Holocaust. However, we might well point out that Barmen is especially
relevant whenever the church is tempted to go along with negative stereotyping that promotes
violence and murder of oppressed minorities. Less Light Churches commonly pay more attention to
Paul’s teaching than to Jesus’ and don’t like to be reminded that Jesus said nothing about male-male
homoeroticism (and according to Q, our earliest source, nothing about sex!). We have an
unprecedented opportunity to point out that the negative stereotyping and slurs against
homosexuals, which have promoted so much violence and murder of sexual minorities, results from
following Hitler, not Jesus.

While celebrating Barth and Barmen, we may also be grateful that the Catechisms in their treatment
of our creation in God’s image move beyond a common Barthian hangup in the area of human
sexuality. Years ago feminists properly seized upon Barth’s doctrine of our creation in God’s image
as male and female (Genesis 1:26) to insist upon equal status and ordination rights for women.
However, in recent years this appropriate modern use of the text has been distorted to deny equal
status and ordination rights for sexual minorities. Only the heterosexual couple, we have been told,
consisting of men from Mars and women from Venus, adequately reflects the glory of God, who
wisely created only Adam and Eve, but not Adam and Steve. Happily the Confession corrects this
modern heresy, teaching clearly the New Testament truth that the ultimate expression of God’s
image is no longer a married couple but the single person Jesus Christ (FC Q. 8-9 with citations from
Col 1:15, 2 Cor 4:4-6).

While the focus on the Ten Commandments, with their stern prohibitions directed against
heterosexual males, may be immensely favorable to sexual minorities, the Catechisms should also
be welcomed by Seventh Day Adventists, since the clarity of the Westminster standards for the
"change in day" finds no echo in the new documents. Somehow Sabbath keeping remains on par
with "Thou Shalt not kill." Less Light Churches commonly warn us that the Ten Commandments, like
Mother Nature, are not to be tinkered with (being ethical/moral absolutes"). Not even tinkering a la
Westminster appears in the new documents, but Christian worship on the First Day of the week
emerges mysteriously from the fog as the norm. However, if that major adjustment be accepted, we
might also question whether rape and sexual violence are not more serious than adultery and
whether Jesus’ Beatitudes and Sermon on the Mount might not be a better starting point for teaching
Christian discipleship than Moses. Matthew and Luke seem to think so, but the diversity of their
versions (Mat 5-7 and Luke 6) might prove disconcerting to many in our Less Light Churches. And
for those who take their Bibles seriously, turning the other cheek, not resisting evil and loving the
enemy has always seemed a bit wimpy, while not laying up treasures on earth has sounded
suspiciously like communism. Better stick with Moses’ Ten Commandments and hope no one starts
snooping around in the book of Exodus to see what else Moses had been up to.

Perhaps one of the more notable departures from the Westminster standards are the affirmations
about Israel (SC Q.37) where Augustinian (amillenial) notions about the church replacing the nation
Israel are rejected in favor of a more careful reading of Romans 11. In the 19th century
Dispensationalism first blazoned upon our modern theological and hermeneutical map a clear
distinction between the people of Israel and the church. A Swiss dispensationalist who became a
universalist returned from the USA and introduced the new perspective to Karl Barth, through whom
they were promulgated in his commentaries on Romans and further developed by Ernst Kasemann
and more recent studies of Romans. If the same sophistication in reading Romans 11 to avoid
traditional anti-Judaism were to be applied to Romans 1 to avoid homophobia, we might soon
dispense with the effort to keep our countless sexual minority leaders suffocating in their closets.

The new documents also seek to inculcate a more purely Calvinistic understanding of the
sacraments than Presbyterians are accustomed. Probably most will find it difficult to part company
with their traditional Zwinglian and rationalistic understanding of the Lord’s Supper, and the
Calvinistic interpretation so briefly stated will sound suspiciously like Lutheran or Roman Catholic
views. Although almost universally rejected by modern New Testament exegetes, infant baptism is
affirmed and defended with a dose of covenant theology and the usual inadequate proof texts. The
use of the three household baptisms in Acts (not "family" concept absent from the entire Bible) is
particularly weak. Lydia obviously was not even married, and if the Philippian jailer was we may
wonder why he was left to perform the traditional feminine tasks of nursing the wounded and
preparing the meal for the guests. Didn’t he realize that if he departed from the culturally expected
gender roles his purportedly baptized children might grow up to be homosexuals?

Although sexual minorities and their allies can rejoice at the new paradigm offered in the exposition
of the 9th commandment, in the next five year’s study, special attention also must be given to the
exposition of the 7th commandment, originally directed to heterosexual males, but extended to cover
an entire area of Biblical teaching and human experience as is common since Calvin wrote his
classical commentaries:

"God requires fidelity and purity in sexual relations. Since love is God’s

greatest gift, God expects me not to corrupt or to confuse it with momentary

desire or the selfish fulfillment of my pleasures. God forbids all sexual

immorality, whether in married or in single life (SC Q. 110)".

The only book in the Biblical canon devoted to sexual love (Song of Songs) is totally sex-positive and
strongly pleasure oriented. However the Song is commonly ignored when the church begins to speak
(usually negatively) about human sexuality. The Song does not restrict sexual pleasure to marriage,
or even to heterosexual relations. In the original unpointed Hebrew text the poems all may be read
as either heterosexual or homoerotic. In the 19th century the study of erotic poetry in the Ancient
Near East led Biblical scholars to recognize that the Song was not an allegory about God’s love for
Israel or Christ’s love for the church. Recognition of some two thousand years of confused genre
identity proved quite a trauma for both synagogue and church. Biblical spin doctors soon solved the
problem with an interpretation of the Song as a three-character drama about sexual fidelity, and
when that fell out of favor, provided notes a la Scofield that at least insured a heterosexual
interpretation of the poems.

Recent works on sexual ethics point out that our Christian allergy to the combination of sex and
pleasure is neo-platonic and stoic, but not Biblical. The Study Catechism continues in this bondage
to Greek philosophical categories with its ambiguous negative reference to sexual "immorality".
Morals and ethics are Greek philosophical categories that never occur in the Bible, despite their
omnipresence in Christian discourse. "Sexual immorality" in modern Biblical mistranslations has
replaced the older "fornication," to represent what usually in the Greek is called porneia (originally
"prostitution", with a variety of later meanings still hotly debated). Strangely, "fornication" is the
translation given in the proof texts provided (Eph 5:3; Heb 13:4; 1 Thes 4:3-4). Traditionally, of
course, the church viewed masturbation as one of the worst forms of porneia. John Wesley wrote a
scathing tract against masturbation, which has been mercifully censured from modern editions of his
supposedly complete works. And since Roberta Hestenes refused to answer the question on the
floor of the 1996 General Assembly, older Presbyterians have been waiting to see whether they can
masturbate without becoming unchaste and forfeiting their ordained status. And dedicated younger
Presbyterians, who intend to remain chaste and pure by denominational standards, may find that the
10 to 15 years from the onset of adolescence until marriage is a rather long time to wait for Dr.
Hestenes to make up her mind.

In addition to the foggy negative prohibition of porneia, the exposition refers to two positive traits of
fidelity and purity. The only prooftext provided for purity is the ambiguous deuteropauline reference
in Ephesians 5:3 to "uncleanness." Paul’s teaching in Romans 14:20 that "all THINGS are clean" is
omitted (as is similar teaching in Titus 1:15).

Fidelity, which never in the New Testament refers to anything to do with sex or marriage,
presupposes specific promises and commitments. Granted that promises made regarding sexual
behavior, like any others, normally should be kept. But modern Presbyterian realism regarding
heterosexual divorce reminds us that many situations in human life are not normal. A wife subjected
to regular physical violence with daughters sexually abused by her spouse may well celebrate her
divorce as divine liberation, not a sin to be bewailed and repented of, whatever promises were
involved. Gay men and lesbians trapped into "marriage" through naivete or church-sponsored
ExGay quackery may well feel the same way and celebrate their liberation from cruel scientific
experimentation where they served as guinea pigs, lives cruelly sacrificed on the altar of heterosexist
idolatry. The Catechism provides as a prooftext on adultery Matthew 5:27-29, but stops short of
including 5:31-32, where divorce is explicitly termed a kind of porneia and adultery. Divorced
Presbyterians (including pastors) thus find their ordained status protected from assault, despite
Jesus’ explicit teaching of the Sermon on the Mount, while sexual minorities are subjected to the
cruelties of Amendment B, devoid of any Biblical support, even in Paul (according to the most
informed recent studies).

The next five years will provide ample opportunity to study and critique the deficiencies in the
catechisms. Instead of torturing the 7th commandment with eisegesis (intent on reading Amendment
B into the Bible) we might propose a more excellent way. We need to begin by repenting of our use
of the Greek philosophical categories of morals and ethics and return to the Biblical categories of
THE WAY and "walking in the truth." In our protest at the General Assembly in 1996 we wisely
marched singing the South African hymn: We are walking in the light. Had we donned the robes of
Greek philosophers and chanted "We are doing ethics and being moral" it would have been
unbiblical and ridiculous. The Bible is much more subversive than we give it credit for. The great
historical continuities in the Way for God’s people in the Bible indicate that sexual acts and relations
should be characterized as:

1 FREE/CONSENSUAL. Since the Ten Commandments are properly designated a charter of liberty
and freedom, liberation from oppression, coercion and violence should become the fundamental
starting point of our exposition of the 7th Commandment. When the institution of marriage
degenerates into an instrument of oppression, coercion and violence, divorce may be celebrated as
liberation, not condemned as sin. Bishop John Spong has even provided a liturgy for such a
celebration.

2 GIVING MUTUAL PLEASURE. Our only canonical book dedicated to the theme of human sexuality
makes abundantly clear that sex is not basically a matter of procreation nor marraige, but mutual
pleasure (Song of Songs 1:2-3,12-14; 2:3; 4:10-11,16; 5:1; 7:6-10,13; 8:10). Christine E. Gudorf
(1994:139-159) has classically expounded the theological case: "the most salient characteristic of,
and chief motivation for sex is sexual pleasure" (139), or as Presbyterians might put it, the chief end
of sex is mutual pleasure.

Most traditional church teaching, dominated by neoplatonic and Augustinian despising of the body
and physical pleasures, rather than the healthy Hebrew enthusiasm for this dimension of life,
presents us with a malicious deity who invents sexual pleasure and then seeks to insure that human
enjoyment be an infrequent experience for second-class humans (those who, lacking the divine gift
of abstinence, must marry rather than burn with passion; Uta Ranke-Heinemann 1988/90). Even the
sometimes dour author of Proverbs is quite explict in insisting that sex is basically about mutual
pleasure (Prov 5:15-20; here in a context of marriage).

3 EMPOWERING FOR LIBERATING JUSTICE. Jesus and Paul move us away from traditional
notions of uncleanness and impurity (sex acts viewed as dirty and shameful) redefine uncleanness
as injustice, and purity as that which is just and loving. Our sexual acts should be done in a
framework of justice, not injustice and oppression. However, in an imperfect world, if we wait for
perfect justice as the context for any sexual act, we will find ourselves waiting much longer than we
have waited for Roberta Hestenes to decide whether masturbation is unchaste and a bar to
ordination. Since Foucault’s studies we realize how complex are the dimensions of human power and
the potentials for injustice and oppression: one has physical size and strength, another financial
power, another youth and sexual attraction, another charm, education, artistic capacity, or culinary
ability. Recent state and media invasion of the Clinton family's privacy has demonstrated that a
young woman intern might well accomplish what decades of hostile atomic weapons failed to do:
remove from power the president of the most poweful empire in human history (Song of Songs 8:6-7
extols the supreme power of sexual love and passion). If we demand perfect justice as the essential
human framework for any acceptable sexual act or relationship, we will have exceedingly little sexual
pleasure and the human race will not long continue. But the justice criteria broadly interpreted,
insisted upon especially in feminist recent feminist works, remains fundamental.

However, for proper understanding of justice in the Bible we must begin with God's liberating justice
at the Exodus. In the New Testament, Jesus' parable of the separation of the sheep and goats
reminds us that to be truly "just" (Mat 25:37,46, commonly mistranslated "righteous") we must show
solidarity with the poor, weak, oppressed and persecuted (25:31-46). Rather than insisting that
sexual partners be virtual carbon copies (equal in every respect: financially independent, educated,
sexually attractive yuppies), as some feminist literature seems to suggest, we might rather accept as
a norm that the sexual relation should not involved oppression but rather should empower each
person to express solidarity and work more effectively for liberating justice of others more needy.
Too often a pleasure-full, permanent, exclusive sexual relationship (gay, straight or bi) becomes a
mechanism for insulating the couple from the world to pursue personal comfort in our consumer
society.

4 LOVING. While many believe that a sexual act can be impersonal, that may be misleading. The
Good Samaritan’s acts involved an unconscious, nameless person, but they were nonetheless
personal, loving acts and commended as paradigmatic by Jesus (Luke 10:25-39). Often the Gospels
describe Jesus as "moved by compassion," reminding us that loving acts, including sexual ones,
frequently are spontaneous. The Catechism’s warning against sexual acts resulting from "momentary
[free, spontaneous] desire" suggests the stereotype of Presbyterians who only do it "decently and in
order" every Friday night--a far cry from the flaming eroticism portrayed in the only Canonical book
devoted to sexual love. If further proof texts from Paul are needed, "Do everything in love" (1 Cor 16:
14) might be preferable to the ambiguous negatives now listed (also Col 3:14). In Romans Paul
makes explicit that neighbor-love implies doing no harm to the neighbor (13:8-10). Often the idea
that love and doing no harm to our neighbor are fundamental norms for human sexual behavior are
denounced as radical modern heresies by traditional types who never seem to get past Romans 1 in
their reading of Paul's letter.

5 WISE. Especially in an age of AIDS, sexual acts and relations that do no harm must be
characterized also by wisdom. Safer Sex and planned responsible parenthood are but urgent
starting points for the wisdom that should guide sexual acts and relations. While the Bible never
speaks of morals, ethics or family, it continually extolls wisdom (Col 4:5; Prov 8). It never calls the
Ten Words "ethics," much less "ethical absolutes" (obviously the Sabbath is not absolute for any
Christians except Seventh Day Adventists). But the Bible frequently refers to Moses’ laws as
"wisdom," wise counsels directed to individuals or peoples in concrete historic contexts on the Way:
coming out of Egypt, entering into the Promised Land, returning from Exile, going into all the world.
To a large extent the different historical contexts explain the variety in the counsels given, but we
also may trace strands of unity in the Bible’s diversity (see the citations of various groupings of the
Ten Commandments in the New Testament, sometimes transformed into vice lists on the Greek
model).

6 FAITHFUL. When we move beyond isolated sexual acts (as in an individual act of masturbation,
formerly called "self abuse", but more recently "self-pleasuring"), partners often spontaneously
desire an exclusive, even permanent sexual relationship. Like the dog who "faithfully" appears daily
with the newspaper, partners may move into a pattern of faithful behavior without any verbal
expression of promises or vows. But, given more recent cultural tradition of marriage involving an
exchange of vows between partners (and not just the older patriarchal form of a wife purchased by
the father for his son), often couples desire to exchange promises, or even vows. Oaths and vows
commonly are imposed by those in power as instruments of oppression. In the Bible, however, the
giving of promises is viewed as a supreme expression of freedom (either divine or human). Your dog
may faithfully bring you your newspaper daily, but cannot promise to do so. When promises are
made (not hastily if we are wise), normally they should be kept.

7 GIVING PEACE. The Apostle Paul is perceptive and quite explicit on this point:
"But if the unbeliever leaves [the believing spouse], let him do so. A believing man or woman is not
bound in such circumstances, God has called us to live in peace" (1 Cor 7:15; 6:1-8; see Col 3:15;
Gal 5:22-23; Rom 14:17). And the Song of Solomon, too, lest any reader think that a continual state
of passionate sexual excitement is envisioned, climaxes its message (8:10) with the affirmation:
"Thus I have become in his eyes like one bringing peace" [Hebrew, shalom, NIV "contentment"]. That
mutual sexual pleasure and fulfillment constitutes a fundamental element of "shalom-peace" in the
Bible is an insight that has not yet surfaced in the many studies devoted to the Biblical theology of
peace.

If we attend to these seven fundamental Biblical continuities (free, mutually pleasure-full, just, loving,
wise, faithfull in keeping any promises given, giving peace), we will find ourselves on the way to an
authentic walking in the Christian way and liberation from both neo-platonism and the cruel vagaries
of Amendment B. These five fundamentals hardly constitute a new legal code, but they do provide a
substantive description of what we mean today when we use terms such as purity and chastity. If we
have jettisoned traditional dogmas about sex only being for procreation and masturbation as an
unchaste, unclean act worse than murder, then the acceptance of the five fundamental continuities
is a relatively small step that can bring much greater clarity to what we teach about human sexuality.
Thus the new Catechisms, liberated from legalism, foggy incoherence and bondage to ecclesiastical
politics, may yet speak a prophetic word.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bangert, Byron C. "New Catechisms a Disappointment" (1998).

Network News

(The

Witherspoon Society), XVIII:3 (Summer),15-16. I am in basic agreement with the Rev.

Bangert's more negative critique, but wanted to emphasize some positive elements.

Gudorf, Christine E. (1994).

Body, Sex & Pleasure: Reconstructing Christian Sexual Ethics

(Cleveland: Pilgrim).

Ranke-Heinemann, Uta (1988/90).

Eunuchs for Heaven: The Catholic Church and Sexuality

(London: André Deutsch).

The Rev. Dr. Tom Hanks,