Like most Catholics I was brought up with a homophobic prejudice and remained so all my life till I came across The Church and the Homosexual by Fr John Mc Neill, SJ, who in his pastoral work specialised in homosexual ethics.

My fear and hatred of homosexuals was based on scripture and natural law, as proof that all homosexual activity was contrary to the will of God. But in the light of today's knowledge of the Bible and human sciences, is this traditional doctrine still valid? According to Rome, it is, whereas according to Fr McNeill, it isn't.

And here starts an all-out discussion on a controversial moral issue, for whereas the Church's traditional biblical norm for the ethical use of sexuality is that of heterosexuality, Fr McNeill is convinced that there is "the possibility of morally good homosexual relationships" (p. 195).

That is, in a few words, the conclusion of his book, judged by the commission of theologians who examined it, to be a serious and scholarly work worthy of publication, although they did not necessarily agree with his arguments - the outstanding moralist, Fr Charles Curran of the Catholic University, for example, disagrees with his conclusions.

However, as the author himself admits, "the permission to publish (imprimi potest) in no way implies that the conclusions stated in this book are accepted by the Catholic Church as part of its official teaching; only the Pope and the Bishops have the authority to teach in the name of the Church." (p. xiii).

Fr McNeill maintains that there should be a reappraisal of the two exclusive aims of traditional pastoral counselling, namely conversion of a homosexual to a heterosexual orientation, or total abstinence from all sexual expression; for both aims are inadequate in a majority of cases, and can produce agonies of guilt, remorse, self-hatred, and emotional breakdowns.

The question which Fr McNeill, together with other moralists, is asking, is: "Could St Thomas's understanding of both human nature and human sexuality in general, as well as his understanding of homosexuality, or lack of it, continue to serve as the basis of moral evaluation today?"

The Church's attitude toward the homosexual has remained the same since St Thomas wrote (in the 1200s) that homosexuality is contrary not only to the procreative purpose of human sexuality, but also to mutual love between husband and wife. This doctrine is believed to have its foundation in the Church's understanding of revelation, both scripture and traditional, in the Natural Law tradition of moral philosophy and moral theology.

Fr McNeill is one of other Catholic moralists who insist on a critical reappraisal of these sources by applying the new methodologies of biblical scholarship to scriptural data and by employing modern human sciences, such as psychology, psychiatry, sociology and anthropology to an in-depth definition of 'human nature'.

Individual biblical texts must be interpreted in a larger context by taking into consideration the cultural and historical circumstances of the time. Many biblical scholars, for example, maintain that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was not homosexuality but inhospitability to the stranger. According to Peter Ellis's book The Yahwist: the Bible's First Theologian, the author, by putting the sexual elements of this story into perspective, wanted to ridicule the pagan fertility worship of his time.

Besides, human sciences nowadays give a more dynamic interpretation of human nature. Contemporary sexual ethics in general places a much greater stress on the interpersonal relationship and personal fulfilment as the proper context within which sexual behaviour must be ethically evaluated. As long as procreation was held as the primary aim of all legitimate sexual activity, it was relatively easy to condemn homosexual activity, since it contradicted that primary aim.

In that perspective, love or interpersonal relationship was considered to be a secondary aim of sexuality. But since the recent emphasis on the coequality of these two aims, Fr McNeill poses the question whether it is morally acceptable if a homosexual relationship can achieve the co-equal aim of mutual support and fulfilment.

He gives a positive answer. In reality, the principal argument of his whole book is precisely that there can be, and as a matter of fact there are stable active homosexual unions which have achieved this interpersonal relationship and mutual fulfilment.

Fr McNeill categorically dissociates himself from the pervert, so-called homosexuals who indulge in promiscuity. He is sincerely asking for a reappraisal of the Church's position by expertly looking at human sexuality from contemporary historical interpretation of biblical texts and from human sciences.

In his pastoral work and counselling, he encountered many Catholic homosexuals who were faced with a dilemma; either to continue their relationship with the Church at the price of being cut off from any deep human relationship, or to continue their homosexual relationship at the cost of cutting themselves from the Church community and its sacramental life.

In this critical situation, confessors and counsellors ask for new guidelines from the Church, because even the general public has come to a new awareness of the homosexual, and the Gay Liberation Movement has raised homosexuality to the level of political consciousness.

However, I want to stress that not all psychiatrists seem to be in harmony with one another. A prevalent school of psychiatrists still regard homosexuality as an abnormal form of sexual development, and the majority of Catholic moralists disagree with Fr McNeill's conclusions.

Some think that in his enthusiasm for a better moral understanding of stable Catholic homosexuals, he only 'assumed' that there is nothing wrong with homosexual acts per se, and that there is no difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. Charles Curran maintains that there are many theological issues which still remain to be decided among theologians.

Fr McNeill himself is aware that his conclusion goes beyond that reached by many of his fellow theologians and the traditional and contemporary teaching of the official magisterium, who insist that the connection between human sexuality and procreation is clearly established in scripture.

In an attempt to discover a genuinely helpful pastoral approach, Fr McNeill has been criticised for losing hold on that biblical norm found in Genesis 1:27,28: "...male and female He created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth'".

I admit that sexuality is a very complex issue which requires further thorough and comprehensive study by both moralists and psychologists without however upholding that all forms of sexual love are ethically equal.