Love is never less valuable or credible

By no means do I flatter myself by supposing that I can undo nearly 2,000 years of entrenched ‘popularized' religious belief structures that are used as reasons to establish (or disestablish) groupings of people. Mr. Humpherys has presented an Augustinian model of "love the sinner, hate the sin" in a framework that addresses homosexuality. He humbly reiterates that the true love shared between two people should be respected as it is a "dim reflection of the divine love shared in the Trinity." He then proceeds to platform himself against an argument of acceptance of acts of homosexuality based on nature vs. natural; where natural is reflective of occurrences; and nature presented as in a form of being.

I would like to address the Augustinian philosophy of "love the sinner, hate the sin:"  I am experiencing righteous indignation over the usage of this heuristic in the context of "acts of homosexuality." It is extremely condescending, and indicates more intolerance than it does acceptance as professed by the Church. I agree that sin from a perspective of engaging in immoral acts is horrible, because it is through immoral acts that we fail to recognize value and dignity in our neighbor — of whom is also made in the image of God.

Homosexual acts are not the pinnacle of a failure to recognize and value another. Please, explore motivations that are more direct and to the point, like those that lead to more sincere conclusions such as "acts of homosexuality really gross me out, and I don't want to be around people that gross me out!" 

Regardless of the eloquence of your assumptions and the assumptions of those with whom you hold as authority, your homophobia is not masked through this presentation. For me, your honesty is most likely preferred over your well intentioned but false sense of inclusion to "the club." 

When you speak of "the true love," I assume that you mean intimate relating without genital sexual contact. I am by no means going to state that sex is, or should ever be confused with love. I'm also assuming that your careful wording of "homosexual acts" refers to sex. Arguably the act of sex, again, regardless of gender and orientation, does not create an experience void of love — God's or other.

I agree that sexual activity can be most damaging when it's the act by which a person rests their sole intention; when the only end sought is one of somatic gratification. I believe that usury of this kind is immoral and worthy of the title of sin, because often it is an act of relegating another person to the position of being an accessory or a utility, and by doing so, perpetuates failure to recognize value and dignity of another. 

More to the point:  If sexual activity is experienced in an intimate loving relationship between two people, it does not make love any less valuable or credible, nor does it make its participants debased, even in a situation where there are acts of homosexuality. 
The arguments presented in your letter regarding the natural vs. nature remind me of the song in Candide by Leonard Bernstein, "The Best of All Possible Worlds." One need only make the slightest inference which is then quickly drawn to the largest of conclusions with little deliberation, thought, or experience.

As a participant in nature, I have some clues of what the world is like here and there.  Nearly two-millennia of history has proven that the Church has far more limitations in understanding nature than some of the other participants who are, and have been there right along side — Copernicus might be one of the more famous examples. Your "assenting" to the teaching authority of the Church seems much more like a submission to an archaic dogma that provides shelter from uncomfortable and awkward visions of most disturbing "natural" occurrences. 

I cannot validate your presentation of natural and nature as a comprehension of either, and to represent your argument is embarrassing.  You infer that homosexuals suffer from a "chemical imbalance" through your analogy of a non-functioning bird of flight (On a side note, it is not in the nature of certain types of birds to fly). You're less than half a step away from proposing that homosexuals can be "cured" from their "disease" through admonishment, charity, and compassion. Keep your admonishments and charity to yourself because they are self serving, and I will boldly state that you have much to learn about compassion, as do we all.       

In conclusion, please do not expect me to confuse your sermon of protection for respect, no more than I will expect you to distinguish my righteous indignation from anger.  n 


Don Thuleen is Gonzaga graduate.