Catholicism in the Dominican Republic and its relation to Homosexuality, Homophobia and AIDS
In the current age, we live in, homosexuality and the LGBTQ+ community are more widely accepted due to numerous social efforts and widespread acceptance among many nations including the United States. However, there are many who still look down upon it and consider it an abomination. Many of whom mostly** of the Latino community and practice the Catholic religion among other conservative religions(i.g Pentecostalism). In this essay, I am going to focus on the effect of Catholicism on the Dominican Republic and its particular relationship to homophobia, while taking into consideration the many events that pushed more social mobility in the country. Are all Catholics homophobic and if not does this mean that the Dominican Republic widely accepts homosexuality? What does the AIDs/HIV epidemic have to do with this issue? Are the members of the LGBTQ+ community in the Dominican Republic getting their respective rights? These questions can be answered in a simplified way but I will state my case with evidence and my own knowledge and prove that the Dominican Republic is yet a gay or gender neutral comfortable environment.
First, we must investigate the specific laws of the Dominican Republic to determine where homosexuality stands. The Human Rights First Organization states, “ In 2010, the Dominican Republic enacted a new constitution that included a prohibition on same-sex marriage. Article 55 of the constitution defines the family as being based on the core relationship between a man and a woman.” This illustrates that the Dominican Republic is denying a social right to its gay citizens and prohibiting them from marrying people of the same sex. The actions of the government directly shows their perspective on the LGBTQ community. Furthermore, it is obvious that the Dominican Republic is not comfortable with homosexuality and this would appear to make sense since its constitution is also full of Catholicism. Dios Patria y Libertad are the words spelled on the Dominican flag. These words mean God, Country, and Liberty, while God is not written in every way, he is represented on every peso (currency in DR) and taught throughout the educational curriculum. This in it self shows the influence of religion in this countries history. Being a child of two Dominicans and raised by a Dominican grandma, I speak from experience. Alarmingly, the Dominican Republic faces many HIV cases along with Haiti (which neighbors D.R), compared to the rest of the Caribbean. According to the National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, “Contributing to the elevated HIV risk of MSM (Men who have Sex with Men) in the DR is the frequent practice of anal sex, having many and concurrent sexual partners, and engaging in prostitution. MSM risks are also exacerbated by how highly stigmatized homosexuality and prostitution are in Dominican society. For example, being labeled a homosexual or bisexual is so stigmatizing in the DR, that it is likely to prevent men from accessing HIV/AIDS prevention services. Other contributing factors associated with MSM risk for HIV infection are coping mechanisms such as a man believing that as long as he is not penetrated during anal sex, he is being a “man” and does not view himself as gay, homosexual, or bisexual.” This explains that because of the social stigma of being homosexual is so major in the country, many hide their sexuality and relations for fear of discrimination and therefore to pursue medical assistance. In many instances, the people who don’t pursue medical help are usually those who live in poverty and cannot afford it, however, in this situation, it seems that fear of social rejection seems to be more the cause. NCBI states, “In 2003, researchers found a 2% prevalence rate among pregnant women and reported that 1 out of every 40 adults was HIV positive. The areas that are most affected by the epidemic are cities in regions with higher tourism (Romana and Puerto Plata), mainly due to the demand for sex tourism, and large urban areas such as the capital. Researchers hypothesize that bisexual behaviors and homosexuality among men are underreported because those behaviors are highly stigmatized by the health care system and Dominican society in general.” This explains that sex tourism is also a factor of the HIV rate in D.R, and that bisexual and homosexual relations are usually omitted by many due to the judgment and discrimination that the exposure of this information causes by many. Mark Padilla weighs in on this issue in his book Caribbean Pleasure Industry: Tourism, Sexuality, and AIDS in the Dominican Republic, he states, “ Here, by way of introduction, I draw on a growing body of anthropological and social-scientific literature, focusing my discussion on several factors that have contributed to the conceptual problems in public health approaches to homosexuality and HIV transmission in the Caribbean and, perhaps, in other world areas. These include: (1) the tendency to approach bisexual behavior as a bridge connecting otherwise isolated populations of exclusive homosexuals and heterosexuals; (2) a persistent lack of theoretical and methodological sophistication about the ways that stigma and homophobia influence self-reported data on HIV risk behavior;..” This draws on the relationship between the clandestine sexual behaviors of many individuals and how the negative perception of homosexuality and how this, in turn, affects HIV transmission. Due to many in the Dominican Republic being very religious and conservative in their views and homosexuality being such a under the table topic, it is kept in secret and many don’t ask for help.
The research so far has indicated that the Dominican Republic rejects homosexuality in the majority and stigmatizes the LGBTQ community through the laws enacted. The relationship between homosexuality and its opposition by Catholicism still has to be investigated. However, it is clear that homophobia is prevalent in many in D.R. Padilla states, “Indeed, as described below, the international model of the gay pride parade had a paradoxical dual effect on the country’s first conscious public engagement with Dominican homophobia: it potentiated an unprecedented mode of public expression by the gay community at the same time that it effaced many of the local tensions and abusive state practices that were motivationally salient for the gay men who took to the streets. Thus, while international gay cultural symbols and practices provided a widely recognizable means by which to critique societal prejudices, they also eclipsed the local voices and discursive practices that could have expressed opposition to the various structures and inequities that operate on the ground to marginalize gay Dominicans. (79)” This highlights the reaction of the LGBTQ community against the social oppression and discrimination received by the country and its government officials. This also suggests that celebrations of homosexuality from other places with more acceptance had an impact on the LGBTQ community in the Dominican Republic and this caused more social efforts for representation in society to be created. Taylor and Francis Online’s H Daniel Castellanos explains in his article Santo Domingo’s LGBT social movement: At the crossroads of HIV and LGBT activism, “While similar calls for democratization were happening in the Dominican Republic, the LGBT movement only started at the very end of the 80s. It is possible that the right-leaning democracies of the 70s and 80s and the collective discourses of hyper-masculinity, homophobia, and conservatism advocated by Trujillo and his successor Balaguer, mainstream society, and the Catholic Church delayed the emergence of Dominican LGBT activism. While the general population still had negative views on homosexuality (Corcino, 2006), societal changes were increasing the ability of LGBT leaders to obtain elite support in the legal, cultural, and media circles.” This shows that due to the influence of Republican political views from the United States during the 70s & 80s, the history of the dictator Trujillo and others after him, and the Catholic Church, support for the LGBTQ was never able to happen until recently. It is important to note that Trujillo was a dictator from 1930 to 1961 in the Dominican Republic, and he took many civil liberties and hated Haitians and encouraged Dominicans to do the same, it murdered many homosexuals and people who did not pass his language test. It is no surprise that still to this day many people in the Dominican Republic still feel this way against homosexuals and Haitians. Castellanos also states, “The HIV/AIDS epidemic forced a public discussion on homosexuality that challenged public officials and leaders to take public health, political and legal actions. By 2000, there were 50,000 documented cases of HIV infection in the Dominican Republic, with 7.6% of them assigned to homosexual/ bisexual contact (UAIDS, 2007). However, the rate could be higher due to lack of HIV testing or disclosure among men who have sex with men for fear of stigmatization and homophobia (Caceres, 2002).” This illustrates that of the people who actually had a chance to get tested a small percentage said it was through homosexual relations and this shows that this is most likely due to fear of being discriminated. And this further explores the homophobia given by the Dominican Republic government and some of its people and its effect on the sexual health of those who live a clandestine lifestyle.
The rejection of freedom of sexuality by the government shows a grave impact on the sexual health and wellness of its citizens. However, is it really their fault? The Dominican Republic is a predominantly Catholic nation, and in Catholicism, homosexuality has been viewed by many as unholy and sin for centuries. As Living Out’s article What does the Bible say about homosexuality?, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22) If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13).” This means that men are not allowed to have sexual relations or romance with men because it is considered a sin. And if a man does in fact have relations with another man then they will both be put to death. Many religious people still continue to believe in this quote, and therefore believe that homosexuality is unholy and something in the same category as something demonic. Although, homosexuality has been something that’s been prevalent to humanity for a long time. The Dominican Republic’s government is not excused because this completely goes against the rights and liberties of the citizens who are. Attitudes Toward Homosexuality Among U.S Residents of Mexican Descent states, “For example, Crawford and Robinson (1990) found that Latinos in an ethnically-diverse convenience sample of male high school students were significantly less antigay than their non-Hispanic White counterparts. Bonilla and Porter (1990), using data from the General Social Survey, found that Hispanics did not differ from Whites but were more tolerant than Blacks in their moral judgments about homosexual behavior (although a majority of all three groups judged homosexual behavior to be “always wrong”.” This explains that when adolescent Latino men were exposed to people of more diverse racial and national backgrounds they accepted homosexuals more compare to other races. Moreover, this explains that there appears to be a relationship between diversity and the acceptance of sexuality when comes to Latinos. This explains why in big cities like New York City, there is such widespread acceptance, because of the diversity it holds. It is possible that homophobia can be coming from the Dominican Republic government rather the people themselves. This could be a result of the leaders being of a different generation or being conservative in their religious views. The Munich Personal RePEc Archive’s Arno Tausch explains in his essay Practicing Catholics and their attitudes on homosexuality. Comparative Analyses, based on recent World Values Survey data, “The official Catechism position that homosexuality can never be justified is still an “electoral” majority position in ….,…,.Puerto Rico, Colombia, Latvia, Estonia, Dominican Republic, Malaysia, South Africa, Italy, and Mexico. (13-14)” This shows that the majority of the government in these countries are totally against homosexuality and that cannot be justified. According to the table on page 16, The Dominican Republic has a 49% rejecting homosexual neighbors and a 53% of them say that homosexuality is never justifiable. This means that a majority of the country is against homosexuality and this further emphasizes the social stigma this community faces. Tausch further elaborates, “The attitudes of the global populations on homosexuality can be summarized in Map 2 and Table 1. There is a clear tendency that homosexuality is tolerated much more in developed than in developing countries. (13)” This explains that in modern society homosexuality is tolerated in greater value by developed and wealthy countries compared to countries that are still developed and have a lot of poverty. Furthermore, developed nations usually have much more human rights and liberties compared to developing nations which usually lack education and have much more violence. However, the Dominican Republic rejects homosexuality because of religion. As the United States Department of State indicates, “ The largest religious group is the Roman Catholic Church. Traditional Protestants, evangelical Christians (particularly Assembly of God, Church of God, Baptists, and Pentecostals), Seventhday Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) have a much smaller but generally growing presence. According to a 2006 population survey by the Gallup Organization, the population is 39.8 percent Catholic (practicing), 29.1 percent Catholic (nonpracticing), and 18.2 percent evangelical Protestant.” This explains that because of the majority of D.R being Catholic, and Catholism showing opposition to homosexuality historically, that the reason homophobia is so prevalent it is because of religion.
To conclude with, it is clear that in the Dominican Republic, homophobia has been and is still a big factor in society, and this mainly due to Catholicism and its practices against the LGBTQ community. It has also been proven that not all people who follow the Catholic religion are against homosexuals. It is our job as a society to influence and push social reforms for the LGBTQ community in D.R because compared to them we have many rights. If we don’t do anything we face the possible death of many who could contract the HIV virus.
Works Cited
Padilla, Mark. Caribbean Pleasure Industry : Tourism, Sexuality, and AIDS in the Dominican Republic. University of Chicago Press, 2007. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e000xna&AN=260205&site=ehost-live.
“LGBT Issues in the Dominican Republic.” Human Rights First, www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/dominican-republic-fact-sheet.pdf.
Tausch, Arno. “Practicing Catholics and Their Attitudes on Homosexuality. Comparative Analyses, Based on Recent World Values Survey Data.” Munich Personal RePEc Archive, 27 Nov. 2017, mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/82681/1/MPRA_paper_82681.pdf.
Allberry, Sam. “What Does the Bible Say about Homosexuality?” Living Out, www.livingout.org/the-bible-and-ssa.
The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. “International Religious Freedom Report 2008.” State.gov, U.S Department of State, 28 Oct. 2008, www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2013/06/10/Dominican Republic_3.pdf.
Castellanos, Daniel. “Santo Domingo’s LGBT Social Movement: At the Crossroads of HIV and LGBT Activism.” Taylor & Francis, 27 Feb. 2019, www.tandfonline.com/eprint/kN7PzEgcUaxerF9D6J5X/full?target=10.1080/17441692.2019.1585467&.
Herek, Gregory M., and Milagritos Gonzalez-Rivera. “Attitudes toward Homosexuality among U.S. Residents of Mexican Descent.” The Journal of Sex Research, vol. 43, no. 2, 2006, pp. 122–135. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20620237. Accessed 28 Apr. 2020.