You can email Mr. Fitzpatrick at Jkfitz42@cs.com. This article originally appeared in The Wanderer and is reprinted with permission. To subscribe call 651-224-5733.
And yet, defenders of traditional views more than hold their ground on the talk shows and in public debate. Folks like Jerry Falwell and Alan Keyes are never left foundering when homosexual advocates advance the notion of homosexuality as an “alternative lifestyle.” Maybe it is a classic case of preaching to the choir, but it strikes me that they are quite adept at using natural law theory, biblical passages and common sense observations about the effects of the homosexual lifestyle on the health and longevity of those who engage in it. (Pat Buchanan recently reported on a survey of the obituaries in the homosexual press. The average age at death of homosexuals with AIDS was 39; 42 for those without AIDS.)
That said, there is a new argument being advanced by Christian homosexuals and those sympathetic to their cause that presents a challenge. It rests upon the idea that there are consequences to accepting the Church’s long-held position that there is nothing sinful about being tempted by homosexual longings, as long as the person beset with this temptation overcomes its lures and lives a chaste life. I recently came across an effective presentation of this call for toleration of homosexuals in the letters to the editor section of the journal First Things (February, 2002).
The letter writer was a Lutheran minister and former Eagle Scout from Ohio, writing in protest against the position taken by Father Richard John Neuhaus (the editor of First Things) in support of the Boy Scouts ban on homosexual Scouts and Scout leaders. His complaint was that Father Neuhaus and the Boy Scouts make “no distinction between orientation and behavior,” and that “the Scouts require no infraction in behavior in their exclusion of homosexual persons. They are committed to exclude Scouts and Scout leaders for being truthful about homosexual orientation, and this when they do not exclude recovering alcoholics, heterosexuals struggling with lust, or any other disordered condition not showing itself in sinful behavior.” He argued that “the presumption of the guilt of homosexual behavior or anything else on the part of homosexual men and women is on its face unjust prejudice and a slap at those brothers and sisters who struggle valiantly and successfully” to stay chaste.
Well? What is wrong with this Lutheran minister’s argument? Is there any reason why a homosexual who overcomes his temptations should be treated any differently from those who are afflicted by longings for other sinful behavior, especially when the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “Every sign of unjust discrimination in [homosexuals’] regard should be avoided”? I say, yes.
Why? Because those who overcome their temptations to other sins do not openly label themselves with the sin. This is a crucial difference, with implications that must be taken into account. We would never know if a Scout leader lusted for the wives of the other Scout leaders. If he overcame his temptation to seduce them, he would not call himself a philanderer Scout leader. We would not know it if a Scout leader was beset by a life-long temptation to steal everything not nailed down. If he did not embezzle the funds in the Scout troop’s treasury, he would not call himself a robber Scout leader. We would not call these men philanderers or thieves unless they acted upon their impulses. We would have no clue to the nature of their inner demons, unless they revealed them to us. And why would they want to do that? If they have overcome their temptations, why would they want to be publicly associated with the sin?
Yet this is exactly what certain self-professed chaste homosexuals want to do. They want to “come out of the closet,” to be known as homosexual Scouts and Scout leaders. The question is why. Why do they want the other Scouts and Scout leaders and parents to be aware of their “orientation,” if they agree that acting upon it would be immoral? People simply do not do this with their other temptations to sin. (Except recovering alcoholics. But this tendency of alcoholics to publicly identify themselves as alcoholics is a special case. It is in the main a consequence of the recovery process required by Alcoholics Anonymous. Unless a recovering alcoholic Scout leader were in charge of driving Scouts to their campsites, a fall from grace would not present a threat even remotely close to a homosexual Scout leader giving in to his weakness.)
I would argue that those who insist upon the “right” to identify themselves as homosexuals, even though they have successfully overcome the temptation to engage in homosexual sex, are telling us more than they intend. They are making clear that they are in sympathy with the proposition that guilt and shame should not be attached to homosexuality; that they hold homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle. That is why they insist that they should be free to acknowledge their homosexual yearnings. One does not maneuver in this way in regard to behavior one considers immoral or a psychological disorder.
But what of this Lutheran pastor’s insistence that he is talking about homosexuals who have overcome their temptations and are living chaste lives? Well, I would be willing to bet, if the Boy Scouts accepted his demands and agreed to accept “chaste” homosexuals as Scouts and Scout leaders, that this would be nothing more than the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent. Consider what would happen if the Boy Scouts were to agree that homosexual leanings, if not acted upon, were morally acceptable for members of their organization. Can anyone picture them a year or two later excluding a Scout or Scout leader who decided to act upon his yearnings? I can’t. I’d go so far as to say that this call for toleration of chaste homosexuals is a bait-and-switch scam, an attempt to lure the rubes in with one offer, and then sell them something else that they had no intention of buying.
