The document summarizes and critiques the book "The Sexual Person" which expresses views on human sexuality that differ from traditional Catholic teachings. The book's authors argue that Catholic moral theology needs reestablishing with a historical perspective, and they propose substantial changes including supporting homosexuality. They claim scripture lacks relevance due to lacking historical context. However, the document argues the book's position on homosexuality is circular and relies on ambiguous uses of "natural". It concludes the book poses dangers by justifying behaviors and being misquoted to support positions inconsistent with Christian morals.

1. 1
:
Homosexuality as expressed in” The sexual person”
The interpretation and theological teachings on human sexuality result in varying views
about sexual person. The authors of the book “the sexual person” expressed their views in what
many catholic believers consider to be erroneous conclusion about human sexuality. In addition
to deficiency in theological methodology used in this book various theologians differ in their
views on various concepts presented in this book such as contraception, morality of pre-marital
sex and artificial insemination. The critique of this literature urges that its teachings are
misleading and are not right for Christian morals. The controversial concepts developed by
Lawler and Salzman are based on the assumption that traditional moral theology used by catholic
in dealing with sexuality matters is inadequate and absolute and needed to be re established on
new foundations (Lawler and Salzman p.67).
The author’s rejection of Magisterium teachings was based on this assumption as they
proposed substantial changes to the teachings. The greater deal of Lawler and Salzman’s
literature is a critique of inadequacy of magisterial teachings. Considering the fact that Catholic
moral theology derives two prime sources of teachings from natural law and scripture, the sexual
person concepts are critique of the natural law and scripture in developing sexual morals. Among
the controversial concepts discussed in this book is the homosexuality inclination. The authors
support their position by analyzing scriptural, magisterial and theological teachings about
homosexuality.
In dismissing scripture teachings on pre- marital sex and contraception, Lawler and
Salzman argue that the scripture lacks “a systematic code of sexual morals”. According to them

2. 2
specific scripture references on sexual behaviors lacks relevance in today’s world due to its
historicity. The authors insist on the significance of historical consciousness. The teachings in
the scripture fitted in historical times and are not relevant. In their view, scripture readers should
avoid overhasty diversion from the factual meaning of the scriptural teachings to a normative
interpretation. “it is insufficient to read the scripture to find out its teachings on sexual morality.
It is crucial to clarify social historical context followed by text translation, interpretation and
enculturation in the contemporary context.
A main scheme of this book is that the historicity of Christian doctrine and scripture are
no longer normative for use in contemporary situations in practice. However, the authors
recognizes the possibility of theoretical influence in sexual morality. Moreover, the authors
severally points out that critical deficiency of magisterial teachings, traditionalist, and catholic
moral theology is the lack of historical consciousness and the assumption that historical
statements about sexual morality continue to be normative forever. The continued appeals about
historical consciousness discredit sexual norms based on church statement, magisterial teachings
and scripture to pave way for the contention of contrary concepts.
An instance of contradicting concept teaching is the section on homosexuality. The
authors recognize that some magisterial and scriptural teachings condemn homosexuality, but
dispute that the condemnations are merely based on untrue assumption founded on social
historical circumstances of the era in which they were formulated. In support of their position
about homosexuality, the authors proposed the assumption that all human beings logically have
heterosexual conditions. They dismissed other Christian teachings on the basis that they did not
consider homosexual conditions in human beings. They claim that the teachings assumed that

3. 3
every human being was heterosexual. They also supported a proposition that homosexual
behavior is a distortion of immoral and nature (p.88).
According to Lawler and Salzman, scriptural teachings on homosexual behavior are just
an expression of social historical postulations of the writers. They support this through their
proposition that scripture condemned homosexual behavior as a perversion of heterosexual
practice which they thought to be natural condition for all human beings. The foundation of
scriptural condemnation of homosexuality reveals the writers assumption about the genuineness
of heterosexuality, the authors propose that this assumption has been negated by the modern
world. The authors disagree with the perversion of the heterosexuality behavior by homosexuals
claiming that they have a homosexual natural orientation, as opposed to heterosexual (p.151).
There are, nevertheless, two errors in their argument about homosexuality. First, a
scrutiny of the structure of their discussion discloses that it is circular; this is because the
argument depends on the authors’ earlier assumption that homosexual behavior is natural for
human beings with a homosexual inclination (p.152). Lawler and Salzman propose that since
the scriptural writers denounce homosexual behavior as being unnatural and they fail to make an
exception for human beings with a homosexual inclination, the scripture teachings shows their
ignorance of the fact that homosexual condition is natural for human beings with a homosexual
orientation. This supposed ignorance renders what the scripture teaches about homosexuality
irreverent and immaterial to the contemporary argument. For Lawler and Salzman, a major
opposition to their argument that homosexual behavior is natural for individuals with a
homosexual inclination has thus been detached. According to the critiques such an argument,
does not reveal the “naturalness” of homosexual behavior, but simply presupposes it.

4. 4
The Second error in Lawler and Salzman’s argument is that the concept depends on an
ambiguous use of the expression “natural”. Lawler and Salzman are accurate on their statement
that that the scriptural writers considered heterosexuality condition as natural and homosexual
condition as unnatural. This is because the use of the expression natural differs in the context of
use. In scripture and magisterial teachings the phrase “natural” referred to what is dependable on
the natural order ascertained by God, in which woman and man were created for each other, and
the essential rationale of human sexuality is pleased only in the marriage between a woman and a
man (p.158). Lawler and Salzman’s analysis of the scripture writers’ meaning, however,
presumes a diverse meaning of the phrase “natural”. They argue about the homosexual
inclination as “natural” in a more universal sense referring to something that is not preferred.
What they fail to realize is the fact that an orientation to homosexual behavior can be “natural”
according to their view use but still be “unnatural” from the scripture’s and catholic moral
theology perspective. The argument of Lawler and Salzman conceals the disparity between their
explanation and that of the scripture.
The authors of The Sexual Person emphasize that since the “scriptural assumption on
sexual moral issues can be scientifically revealed to be inaccurate, the scripture cannot
objectively contribute towards genuine discussions on homosexuals and homosexuality as the
concept is understood in the contemporary world. In my sight, the assertion that the scripture,
and ,theological assumptions on sexual behavior as being scientifically inaccurate is misleading.
This is because the authors do not proved enough evidence to show how scripture and
theological position is scientifically inaccurate. Universality of heterosexuality can only be
disproven scientifically by empirical evidence showing how some individuals experience sexual
inclinations directed towards human beings of the same sex. The evidence provided in this

5. 5
literature is not sufficient enough to determine whether or not theological teachings writers,
scriptural writers and the rest of the society prior to publication of this book, were indeed
unaware of the fact that various individuals have a primarily homosexual orientation. This
remains a historical question that cannot be answered by Salzman and Lawler’s propositions.
The only evidence given by Lawler and Salzman is the absence of scriptural support in places
where specific references to heterosexual and homosexual orientation would be expected (p.89).
In conclusion, the authors of the sexual person offer critique on various issues about
human sexuality. They criticize theological and other Christian teachings on the ground that they
lack historical conciseness and are irrelevant to the contemporary world today. Their support on
homosexuality concept which is expensively discussed in this literature in based on the argument
that theological doctrines that condemn it fail to consider the naturalness of individuals who have
homosexual inclination. The author’s claim that the context of the condemnation is historical and
does not have today’s world context. In my view, the position held by the authors of this
literature poses a danger to the current society. Many people seek to justify what they do and
finding this literature supporting homosexuality is likely to accelerate its practice in the society.
The literature also seems to borrow much on scientific approval of homosexuality in the
naturalness and inclination. I therefore, feel that it is likely to be quoted by individuals and
societies that support homosexuality based on scientific justifications.
Work cited
G. Lawler and Salzman, The Sexual Person, Toward a changed Catholic Anthropology
(2008).p.88-158. Met

6. 6

7. 6