Need help from a Catholic!

My name is Justin. I am a 30 y/o gay Protestant Christian with a best friend of is as I would describe as a hard core (straight) Catholic Christian. We always have discussions on being gay and not being gay. He wrote the following letter, which is long, but I need serious thought from Catholics who have disputed this before and who actually have a better stance on a Catholic view vs my own. Is this how the Church really sees gay people? The letter actually points out that being gay is compared to beastiality, pedophillia, etc. Please help. I find it very disturbing.

Justin,

The points I would make are ....

1) It is true that a person's sexuality does not only exist when the person is engaged in sex (and the Church formally teaches this). However, the TRUE sexuality of a homosexual man is not that of "a homosexual man." Such a claim is a short-sighted and irrational lie. Rather, his TRUE sexuality is that of A MAN (a male human being) --PERIOD. Homosexual behavior or homosexual desires are the result of a disordered expression or appreciation of his true and natural male sexuality. The same would also be true of those who are inclined toward pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, extreme auto-exotica (i.e., exclusive or near-exclusive masturbation), and a number of other sexual disorders. All of these begin with a man's natural sexuality (i.e., our biological drive to procreate as an "animal species") and twist or disorder it into something that is an abnormal departure from our natural sexuality (our biological drive to procreate as an "animal species"). If a chicken or a panda is driven to copulate with a tree, we would all agree that the animal has something wrong with it --that it's sexuality is somehow disordered, and its viability as a species is definitely in danger. In other words, it risks extinction because its sexuality is divorced from what sexuality is biologically intended to be geared toward --an act of heterosexual procreation. However, in our modern, free and democratic society, we tend to (stupidly) see sex as a mere recreational function --a source of personal pleasure. And the Gay and Lesbian political factions use this to advance their agenda. In other words, if sex is only about personal pleasure, then we all (in a free and democratic society) should (supposedly) have a right to seek out our pleasure in any way we please (e.g. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."). The problem with this, however, is that such a view totally ignores the biological nature and real purpose of sex (which is ESSENTIALLY a procreative act), and thus people fail to recognize that homosexuality (like pedophilia, necrophilia, and auto-eroticism) is actually a disorder. ....or, at the very best, an immature, incomplete, and unworthy expression of what human sex and sexuality are supposed to be ...even biologically-speaking!!! Take, for example, the practice of the ancient Roman vomitorium --a room in ancient Roman restaurants and aristocratic homes where, in the course of lavish dinner parties ("orgies" in the original sense of the term --an "eating party"), people would retire to vomit up what they had just eaten, so that they could return to the dining room and enjoy the pleasure of eating some more. Now, the vast majority of modern-day Americans would agree that this behavior was disordered --that it was perverted and unhealthy for the ancient Roman aristocrats to divorce the pleasure of eating from the essential, biological purpose of eating, with is nourishment and nutrition. Yet, this is exactly what most modern Americans (both heterosexual and homosexual) do with sex! In our present culture, sex is primarily for pleasure, not for procreation (it's actual, biological function). And, please understand, Justin: I am not saying that sex should not be regarded as pleasurable or that one should not enjoy the pleasures of sex. As with eating delicious food, sex is to be enjoyed. But, that is not its primary or essential purpose; and one should not loose sight of the biological nature or character of human sex or sexuality. To do so would be to deny what we are on a biological / natural level. But, you see, there is no room for this is modern "homosexual philosophy." Rather, the homosexual agenda can only exist in the immature conception that sex is merely recreational and to be regarded SOLELY in a recreational capacity. For, there is no procreative (e.g. reasonable) dimension to homosexual sex or "sexuality." Ergo, one cannot actually possess a homosexual "sexuality" per se. Rather, one can only possess a male (or female) sexuality which is disordered toward homosexual desire or behavior. ...or some other non-biological sexual disorder (pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, etc.)

2) The dichotomy of "Gay or straight" is a myth --a modern, Anglo-Saxon invention, born of "black-or-white," "either-or" Germanic mentality. Ancient homosexuality (such as in ancient Greece) did not manifest itself in this "either-or" way. Ancient Greek men who practiced homosexuality also had wives and had relations with their wives; and they would laugh at the concept of "Gay marriage," which would seem ridiculous and impossible to them. This is further evidence of the fact that there is no such thing as a "Gay man" --a man whose sexuality is intrinsically homosexual. Rather, homosexual behavior or desire is something that is DONE WITH male sexuality (i.e., a real but disordered attraction). It is not the man's sexuality in and of itself. And, indeed, even today, many men with homosexual appetites express their sexuality is heterosexual ways. In fact, most of the homosexual men I've come to know personally have had sexual relationships with women, either in their youths or at some point in their lives.


3) Justin, you misrepresent the Catholic Church's position when you quote us as saying (emphasis mine): "It's not wrong to be a homosexual, the homosexual conduct is wrong!" "Wrong" is not the correct word. Rather, what we say is that: "It's not SINFUL to be a homosexual (i.e., to have homosexual desires), the homosexual conduct is SINFUL." Big difference. Our position is that one does not incur guilt by merely having homosexual desire (or desire to commit any other sin, for that matter). If I have sexual desire for a woman who is not my wife, I do not commit sin unless I act on this desire. And the same applies to a homosexual who has sexual desire for another man. Desire (which we have no control over) is not, in and of itself, SINFUL. Yet, if this desire is disordered (not in keeping with justice and righteousness), then the desire is still wrong. If I have sexual desire for my best friend's wife, I cannot help how I feel, so it is not a sin for me to have this desire. My desire does not make me guilty of anything. BUT, ... It's certainly not just or righteous for me to feel this way. The desire is disordered and wrong. She's my best friend's wife! And, if I act upon such a wrong desire, I will hurt my friend and ruin our friendship. And, in the same way, if someone with a homosexual inclination sexually desires another man, it is a wrong and disordered desire. Yet, it is not sinful unless he acts upon this desire. He is not guilty of anything by merely having the desire, over which he has no control. But, the desire itself is obviously and objectively disordered. No just or righteous good can come of it.

4) You further misrepresent our position, Justin, when you quote us as saying: ""There are not such thing as homosexuals....just homosexual conduct...so they shouldn't have their own rights." Not only is this not actually our position; it is also a logical fallacy in many respect.

a) First of all, we think that all people have rights. Rights are rooted in human dignity, not in sexual appetites. I am a man with a male sexuality. My sister is a woman with female sexuality. But, we have equal rights as human persons. My rights are not superior to my sister's rights because I have a penis and desire women and she has a vagina and desires men. So, as human beings, those with homosexual disorders still have rights --the same rights that I have. And PLEASE don't invoke the marriage thing. Why not?? Because we both have the same rights there too: I can marry a woman, and my homosexual friend can also marry a woman. No one is going to stop him. Ergo, equal rights.

b) Likewise, we Catholics readily recognize that there are indeed such things as "homosexuals." Obviously, there are individuals who are sexually attracted to the same sex. What we deny is that these individuals are exclusively (or MUST BE exclusively) attracted to the same sex (the sexual experience of many homosexuals implies otherwise) and we deny that they should be treated as a distinct "People" (like Blacks, or Hispanics, etc.), because they are most certainly not a "People." Rather, they are a collection of individuals who happen to enjoy "a common interest," not unlike Gamers, or Science Fiction devotees, or Hip-Hop groupies, or football fans. Sorry Justin, but having a common interest (no matter how powerful or passionate one may be about it) does not make you into "a People," meriting special rights.

c) In recognizing that homosexuals exist, we Catholics do not limit homosexuality to behavior. Obviously, there is a desire and psychological orientation behind such behavior, and which drives such behavior. So, there is such a thing as true, homosexual desire and orientation. Only an idiot would deny this, and we are not idiots. Likewise, the Catholic Church does not claim to know whether someone develops a homosexual orientation or if someone is born with such a homosexual orientation. It is quite possible (but not conclusively so) that those with homosexual orientations are born that way ---that they are naturally "wired" to manifest sexual desire for the same sex. However, with that said, it is very bad philosophy / theology to take such a possibility and "run with it" --that is, to presume that, because someone is possibly born with a homosexual orientation that it therefore "logically" follows that "God wants you to be this way" and that homosexuality is therefore "valid and natural" (in the sense of part of God's design). And the reason that this is bad philosophy / theology is because it fails to acknowledge that we happen to be living in a fallen and corrupted universe, where that which is truly natural (obviously designed to be a certain way) is often disordered or perverted from birth, or before birth. Some babies are born with birth defects. Some babies are born with two heads. Some babies are born with intrinsic psychological disorders (e.g. Autism, etc.). Yet, no one would say that this is by God's design or that God desires such things. Rather, in Christianity and Judaism (and sometimes in Islam) we see such things as the product of cosmic evil, caused by the fall of Adam and the fact that we are now in a fallen world (a world infected by sin, sickness, death, and the evil of Satan) and not a world as God originally designed it to be (i.e., Eden). And so, if people are born with homosexual disorders (if it is not a matter of development), then it is sadly a type of birth defect which leads people to relate to or express their natural (male or female) sexuality in a disordered way. However, given that those with homosexual disorders are still rational beings who can choose how to act and to live, they need not be the victims of such a disorder; they can overcome it ...even if they are born with it. And it would of course be naive to say that such a thing is easy. But, with God's grace and the willing resolve, it is possible. ...just as heterosexuals can overcome disordered heterosexual desires (e.g. cheating on their wives; masturbating; engaging in perverted or dehumanizing sex acts, etc.).

5) Regarding celibacy in the Catholic Church, you are misinformed about the Council of Elvira. It did not originate anything. Rather, it merely enforced a time-honored custom among the clergy, albeit in a new way. For, while it is true that, since the time of the Apostles, the Church had always ordained both single / celibate men AND married men to the priesthood, there were always strong rules attached to the married priesthood --rules established by the Apostles themselves. First of all, while a married man (a man who was already married prior to his ordination) could be ordained to the priesthood, once a man was ordained, he could NEVER marry. This is the Apostolic Tradition. And, if the wife of a married priest should die, it was impossible for this priest to remarry. This is also part of Apostolic Tradition. He had to remain celibate for the rest of his life. This is because of the eschatology nature of the priesthood. Once ordained, a priest is a "dead man." He has died with Christ (in a ministerial role) and taken on the life of Christ, and so lives for the world to come, not for this life. For this reason, an ordained priest was always (from the very beginning of the Church) forbidden to marry or remarry. Likewise (and this is an element of Christian history that few people today realize), those married men who were ordained to the priesthood were expected to live continently with their wives --that is, to cease having sex with their wives, and treat them as (what the Apostles called) "sister wives" (see the Greek of 1 Corinth 9:5). And married priests were expected to do this "in imitation of the Apostles," who lived this way with their own wives (e.g. 1 Corinth 7:29). Now, to be honest, many ancient married priests failed to do this. And, in many city-churches, if it was discovered that a married priest had fathered children with his wife after ordination, he was often censured and not permitted to dispense the Sacraments (although he was still permitted the honor to sit in the sanctuary with the other priests during the Liturgy). What the Council of Elvira addressed was a particular solution to this problem --the approach that the entire Western Church would eventually take, which was to dispense with married priests altogether and to only admit celibate men as candidates for priestly ordination. This is of course still the normal discipline of the Western (Roman Catholic) Church today. However, in the Eastern Church (the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches) they still have both celibate priests and married priests. And, these married priests do not need to remain continent with their wives. Yet, this is not the original, Apostolic discipline, but was a revised (relaxed) discipline introduced by the Eastern Council of Trullo in A.D. 692, which the Roman Papacy refused to embrace, but which was eventually implemented throughout the Eastern Church / Eastern Empire anyway. And so, Rome eventually permitted it (without accepting it into Western practice). Yet, even so, shades of the original discipline are still to be found in the canonical demands for these married Eastern priests. For example, an Eastern priest must (under pain of censure) abstain from sex with his wife during various times throughout the Liturgical year --during Lent and the high holy days. He is also forbidden to have sex with his wife for 24 hours prior to celebrating the Sunday Liturgy. So, a married Eastern priest can never have sex with his wife on a Saturday night. And again, this is a remnant of the original Apostolic discipline, which demanded that married priest live continently with their wives.

6) And, in the authentic Catholic understanding, celibacy is not seen as a form of repression, but as a proactive EXPRESSION of one's sexuality. In living a celibate life, one GIVES ones sexuality over to Christ and the Church as a continual expression OF LOVE for Christ and the Church. If one does not do this, one will not remain celibate for very long; and one will be miserable. That is the secret of celibacy. For example, if a woman is deeply and passionately in love (SINCERELY in love) with a man, or if a man is deeply and passionately (and SINCERELY) in love with a woman, and the one they love has to go away for a long time (to prison, or to war, etc.), it is not particularly difficult to remain celibate until this beloved person returns (for as long as it takes) BECAUSE you deeply, and passionately, and sincerely love them, and you want no one else. This is how it is for a Christian celibate whose love and passion is directly entirely toward God. They will only fall if they loose sight of this or if their love for God wanes. Otherwise, celibacy is quite easy, and even joyful. A secular-minded person cannot appreciate or even imagine this.

7) If you really think that celibacy is man-made and not a Divine ordination, what do you do with the words of Christ in Matt 19:12 and with 1 Corinth 7??? Please read these passages and get back to me.

8) Your description of the kid in the article's situation is disturbing. You say "He finally accepted that he is Gay, and it's not a choice." How incredibly short-sighted and immature. For, while, as I touched on above, the kid certainly has no control over his feelings, Justin --none of us do, he most certainly DOES have a choice when it comes to his behavior and how he is to live. For example, ... I am heterosexual, and I DO have a choice. I can marry and devote myself completely to one woman. I can sleep around with many women (which is actually more natural to male sexuality --what we are biologically inclined to do). I can watch porn and masturbate. I can live chastely unless or until I get married. Or I can embrace a permanent celibate life. These are my choices. And a homosexual has the SAME choices. To claim otherwise is a short-sighted and fatalistic mischaracterization.

9) As for the sand analogy, I think your emotional reaction has caused you to miss the point. You may be in a "relationship" with another man (Bryan), but you will never procreate children with Bryan or know the type of intimate covenant with him that you are capable of having with a woman. Now, please understand me: I do not deny (and neither does the Church) that homosexual lovers are capable of personal intimacy. Many homosexual lovers are true and deep friends. There is truly a human bond between them. But, it is not the same type of bond that is possible between a man and a woman. In a homosexual relationship, you will never know true and lasting unity with the other man. You may love him; he may love you. But, it is not and cannot be marital love, no matter how passionately you may feel about it. A comparison would be to someone who loves their pet dog or cat and wishes to say that their love for their pet is identical to the love that they would have for their own child. As an animal lover myself, I can certainly appreciate and respect such a person's passion and claim. But, objectively speaking, this person is simply self-deluded. As deeply as one may love their dog or cat, it is NOT the same as loving a child. The very nature of the thing is different. The pet cannot be your heir; you cannot communicate your own nature to your pet, as you can to your child. The pet is not your flesh and blood, or even your psychological intimate. It cannot love you (with a human love) in the same way you love it. And the same goes for homosexual relationships vs. the type of love and intimacy that can exist between a man and a woman. And, again Justin, please understand: I am not saying that your homosexual lover is tantamount to a dog or a cat. He is a human being (Very intelligent, hard working one at that), with human capacities (including the human capacity to love you). But, because he is male (and because you are male) he is not able to love you as a true spouse. You cannot link your sexualities in true and mutual self-donation in the way a man and a woman can. You can merely be "best friends" and you can satisfy each others sexual desires; but, in satisfying each others sexual desires, you do not effect a "unity" ...which, in heterosexual relationships, may even bear the fruit of reproduction. To be brutally frank, bro, you are "masturbating" each other. You are consensually using each other to fulfill each others sexual desire. This is essentially what oral and anal sex is. And, in our present culture, heterosexuals typically do this to each other as well --that is, they often use each other for sexual gratification without establishing proper intimate unions. Yet, that doesn't make it right either. As God created it to be, sex is supposed to be a) uniative and b) at least potentially procreative (i.e, the real biological nature of sex). A man is not meant to use his wife to gratify himself, as opposed to using his hand to masturbate. Rather, he is to have unity and intimacy with his wife; and in a way that is only possible in heterosexual sex. This, by the way, is the true origin of the so-called "missionary position" --a position in which the man and the woman can look into each others eyes and faces, and connect humanly and personally with each other in psychological, as opposed to merely physical, intimacy. Needless to say, such a thing is not possible with homosexual intercourse.

10) As for your interpretation that the article is supposedly saying that it's "Ok to have a romantic relationship with another guy, just as long as you're celibate," .... I don't think this is the real gist of it, but there's also some truth to that statement. For, as we discussed above, someone with homosexual desires cannot control their feelings. But, if this person with homosexual desires is deeply rational or a committed Christian, he must decide what to do WITH these homosexual desires. The world will tell him to act upon them --to have and enjoy homosexual sex; then he will be "fulfilled." But, I would submit to you, Justin, that this is a lie. I would submit to you that the voice of "the world" is not the voice of God or of righteousness --that such a recommendation will not make someone happy or truly fulfilled. Rather, there is another choice, albeit a difficult one: Above, I explained that celibacy is actually (and must be) an expression of love. And so, it is possible (albeit difficult) to manifest one's attraction to another man through true Christian love by expressing this love through celibacy. This is especially true if you believe that Christianity is true and that homosexual activity is a sin against God and neighbor. And heterosexual Christian men must do something similar to this quite often. I, for example, when I was younger, was in two situations where I was deeply attracted to women who happened to be virgins, but who wanted to have sexual relations with me. But, I did not act upon my sexual desires for these women because I had Christian love for them and wanted to preserve their innocence and their ability to have proper intimacy with their husbands when they did get married. Truth be told, I should have respect and loved them in this way whether they were virgins or not! And while this isn't exactly the same thing, it does illustrate the principal that I'm talking about. To not act upon one's desires FOR THE SAKE OF SINCERE CHRISTIAN LOVE is the greatest expression of human sexuality. And even married men must do this much of the time.

11). Justin, your following statement is most interesting: "And he made a comment saying 'hooray for opposing different view points". First, the gay community as a whole does not actively protest to remove the Church. Nor in general do they want to remove someones freedom to believe as they choose. What they do want is the same representation that two straight people who are married and together have. There is nothing wrong with that. It's a political, social view. Not a religious one. If the Church wants to defy the constitution and associate religous beliefs into politics....pay taxes. Oh wait..they don't." So, what you're essentially saying is that you do not want to remove the Church from society, but you want to recast society in such a way where homosexuality is recognized as 100% valid and ordered, but the Catholic Church is not. In other words, you want to marginalize our 2,000-year-old belief system so that it is not welcome in your new social and political order. This is essentially what you are saying, whether you realize it or not. And, if the Gay "movement" pushes that far, I feel really sorry for you, because it's going to end in death camps, and we Catholics aren't going to be the ones who are sent to them, if you get my meaning ( Please understand that I don't mean that we Catholics will be sending anyone there, but society). In other words, your ilk is being PROFOUNDLY stupid and irrational in pushing things so far. Truth be told, if you simply look around and bother to think about it, you've already won! Just look around: Is anyone killing or beating up Gay people??? Are they being fired from corporate or government jobs because they are homosexuals? Are they forced to live in the shadows ANYWHERE in America or Western Europe??? Does any neighborhood forbid Gay couples from living there? No. Let's face it, it's a bloody "golden age" for Gay people in the Western World. You're accepted and tolerated by pretty much everyone, even (for the most part) by conservative Christians! Yet, you're going to ruin it all for yourselves by pushing it too far. It's not enough for you that you have the freedom to live as you please. No, you also want to "baptize" your lifestyles. You want everyone to agree with you and admit that your lifestyle is "valid." With respect, this is a HUGE mistake, my friend. Look, ... I'm a Catholic, but I certainly don't expect everyone in this society to agree with me or acknowledge the validity of Catholicism. I just require those who disagree with Catholicism to leave me alone and let me live as I please. I do not force Catholicism on anyone. YET, ... You force a recognition of homosexuality on me and on my culture. You force us to re-define things like marriage, parenthood, and family to suit you and your beliefs. But, your beliefs are incomparable with mine. That's simply the reality. And so, that leaves us only one option: ONE OF US has to back down ...or one of us has to "go." So, who do you suppose that's going to be?? Do you honestly think the two-thousand year old Catholic Church is going to be defeated by your decades-old political agenda?? You may score some points in the short term, but you're ultimately going to face disaster if you continue going in the direction where the Gay "movement" is currently going. My best advice (and it is sincerely well-intended advice) is for the Gay "movement" to quit while it's ahead. You already have everything you need. Stop tampering with Western civilization itself. Stop "poking it with a stick." It will eventually wake up, and bite REALLY hard! Trust me, you DO NOT want this. History does repeat itself...

12) You say: "I've seen a TON of gay relationships that are JUST as healthy if not more than a lot of straight ones." No, you haven't. Be honest. What you MEAN to say is that you've seen many (certainly not "tons") of homosexual relationships which are as "healthy" as typical quasi-dysfunctional modern American marriages. And, so what? Lots of non-homosexual friendships are like this too. But, none of them are true marriages or what marriages are supposed to be. That's the point.

13) Just because a particular group is beaten or victimized doesn't mean that the group (or what it stands for) is right or noble. Your American mentality (which always sympathizes with the underdog) is not the rule of reality. As for homosexuals being victimized, where exactly does this take place today, aside from individual cases? Let's face reality: In our present culture, a kid who is Gay is as likely to get beaten up as a kid who has buck teeth. Does this mean that buck teeth should be celebrated? ..or that braces are "evil" and orthodontists are Nazis?

14) You say: "First of all, being gay is genetic. It's science. It's within us." I do not insult your intelligence, so please do not insult mine. There is no scientific conclusion on this issue. To pretend that there is a conclusion is immaturity at best. As I touched on above, we do not know whether homosexual desire is hard-wired or a matter of development. It could be either one, or it could be caused by different factors in different people! So, stop painting with such a broad brush. It's beneath an intelligent adult, such as yourself, to do so. And, as I said, "it's genetic" or "it's within us" doesn't make it valid. Some people are born with bad tempers or the desire to kill. It doesn't mean we should tolerate that sort of stuff in society.


15) Your impression that the Catholic Church was often (supposedly) on the wrong side of science is simply incorrect and a bastardization of history. It's based almost entirely on the case on Galileo, and if you understand the historical facts in his case, the Church wasn't wrong there (on scientific grounds) either. It knew that Galileo was scientifically correct. It "oppressed" him (putting him under house arrest in an luxurious Italian villa, paid for by the Pope, in which he was free to carry on his scientific work, but not publish ;-)) because he was claiming that THE BIBLE was wrong, and the Church could not permit this THEOLOGICAL interpretation of the evidence in a 17th Century Europe where Catholics and Protestants were warring against each other, and where Catholics were accused to being unBiblical. See? A little OBJECTIVE history is a dangerous thing. As for science itself, if you bother to look at the Church's historical relationship to science, starting with men like Radabertus in the 900's and through Albert the Great and Copernicus, etc., the Church has consistently been a PROPONENT of scientific thought and research, and consistently on the right side of it! And none other than Albert Einstein (who got his intellectual clock cleaned by the Catholic physicist FATHER Georges LeMetre over whether or not the universe was a constant or ever-expanding ...Einstein mistakenly thought it was a constant), admitted this fact several times in public statements. BTW, the apology that Pope John Paul made viz. Galileo in 1993 had nothing to do with science. It was about whether or not Galileo was a heretic, which he was not (but was nevertheless forced by the Inquisition to repent for heresy). Galileo lived and died as a committed Catholic. The 1993 apology acknowledges this injustice, not to say that the Church was wrong about astronomy.

16) Being a homosexual is not WHO you are. It may be part of WHAT you are, not not WHO you are. Like most modern English speakers, you confuse Personhood and Nature. A person is a "who," a nature is a "what." Jesus Christ is only ONE "Who" (One Divine Person) with two "Whats" --a Divine nature (which He possessed from all eternity) and a human nature (which He acquired in space and time from His human mother). Jesus is NOT a human PERSON. He is a Divine Person (a Divine "Who") with a human nature (a human "what"). To say otherwise is a denial of the Hypostatic Union of Christ and the reality of His Incarnation. In the same way, you are WHO you are as a person. If any aspect of your nature changed (if you became racially different --if you became Black or Chinese), you would still remain WHO you are. If you went from a healthy person to a handicapped person (and had to function in a wheel chair), you would still remain WHO you are. When you die, and no longer have a biologically-based sexuality, you will still be WHO you are. Your sexuality is part of your nature --your what-ness. You should not confuse the two.

17) Discussing this subject with someone who has a homosexual orientation (who has lived with such an orientation for as long as he can remember) is obviously a difficult and emotionally-charged thing. Such a person has suffered and struggled, and they seek (and often believe that he has found) a solution and a purpose to this suffering. However, as difficult as it is to address or admit, there is a distinct difference between objectively discernible truth and the painful experience of coping with homosexual desires in a nominally Christian civilization. If such a discussion is to bear any fruit or reach common understanding, the painful experience must be acknowledged (and respected) but then set aside. Truth is not determined by emotion. It is determined by reason and by honestly exploring discernible reality.

 

These are the responses I am looking for. I do believe he is a fanatic, but not that is a bad thing, except when he claims to make knowledge about apples from oranges. His analogies are very biased and although historically accurate, but misquoted or out of context with his way of thinking.

Keep it up!

 

Oh I could say a lot to my friend here regarding the letter he sent me. But he is so dire Catholic that it is very difficult to have conversations with him that chalenge his thinking. So, it's good to get fresh ears and eyes on the subject.