[The following letter to the editor appeared in the September, 2003 issue of the New Oxford Review, in response to Ron Belgau’s article, Sodom and the City of God. To read Mr. Belgau’s response, click here.]

Baffled by Ron Belgau’s Story
Ron Belgau’s article Sodom & the City of God (June) purports to be a criticism of the term fag as a reference for male homosexuals. But Belgau went much farther than that particular issue and in the end left be more baffled than when I started.
    Yes, the hypocrisy of most Christians, even most Catholics, is astounding. While most of us are steeped in sins — even sexual sins — we still see the homosexual as more in need of redemption. I understand the disgust Belgau (a chaste homosexual) feels toward supposed Christians who want to pick the sliver from his eye while ignoring the planks in their own. I share that disgust, especially when the plank is worn as a badge of honor in those souls who brag about their sexual exploits, their vasectomies, their serial adultery, etc.
    One thing that baffled me is Belgau’s complaint of the lack of role models for chaste homosexuals. Has Belgau never heard of the many saints who lived chaste lives, who sacrificed their very lives for their virginity, or who turned away from lives of decadence, lust, and sex? Homosexuals seem to be very self-absorbed in their lusts. Even a chaste homosexual such as Belgau is so consumed with his sexuality that he cannot find role models outside his fixation. No other group of people seems to have this problem. Non-homosexual men and women find numerous role models in saints of the opposite sex. People of all races and ethnicities find role models in the saints who are of various races and ethnicities. But a chaste homosexual cannot find a role model who didn’t openly declare his lusts for other men, as if none of the saints in Heaven had to contend with lustful temptations.
    Belgau asks how one would reply to a query about one’s son’s marriage prospects. Would I feel more comfortable saying my son and his girlfriend have moved in together but have no marriage plans or that my son is a chaste homosexual and will not marry? I would not be comfortable with either — but I understand Belgau’s point that many people, myself included, would be at least a little more comfortable with the former. But consider that in the first arrangement I would also be expressing remorse that my son is living a sinful life yet am hopeful that he might repent later. In the second case I must publicly identify my son as being psychologically deficient and under constant and extreme pressure from the homosexual culture (it’s not a “subculture” anymore) to be open proud and accepting of his homosexuality. Furthermore the very culture of which he is a part will deride him unmercifully for remaining chaste and not giving in to his “gift” of homosexuality (whatever that may mean). In this second case, I have no hope that my son will ever really be normal.
    This is one reason why normal people — and that is what heterosexuals are, normal people — are so disturbed by homosexuals, whether they act on their lust or not. Homosexuality is so abnormal — queer to use another term — that the very thought of what they actually do or desire disgusts even the most hardened heterosexual sinner.
    The Church calls upon homosexuals to lead chaste lives but that message is seldom heard. Indeed many bishops write letters, hold forums, sponsor organizations, and take great care to ensure that all homosexuals know the Church is here for them. I even hear an occasional reference from the pulpit about caring for the needs and dignity of homosexuals. But how many organizations do the Bishops sponsor to help heterosexuals remain chaste? How many souls will be damned because Bishops and priests neglected to inform them of the imperative to lead chaste lives and be pure in thought, word, and deed?
    It is very difficult for heterosexuals to keep sexual purity today. Indeed, the message today is that sexual purity is a thing of the past, an outmoded concept. I have personally heard priests say that masturbation is not a mortal sin — and might not even be a venial sin. I’ve heard priests teach that the purpose of marriage is only the happiness of the couple, and that in some cases contraception may very well be morally necessary (in fact failing to use “the pill” might sometimes be a mortal sin!). Moreover, I don’t hear priests talk about divorce and “remarriage,” fornication, immoral movies and TV shows, occasions of sin, etc. Even when the readings at Mass specifically speak of such issues, priests gloss over or ignore sexual sins and will frequently, according to my personal observations, talk about spousal abuse by husbands to the exclusion of nearly all else. One would think that the Church is infested with wife-beaters who, nonetheless, are as sexually pure as newborn babes in arms.
    Finally, groups such as Courage give me an uneasy feeling. I admit that I’m not the sharpest blade in the rack, but I have never understood why one who is struggling with a particular temptation would surround himself with others who suffer from very same temptation. It is beyond my powers of reason to understand how a group of homosexuals can “support one another” to avoid sins of the flesh, as well as sin of thought, when it is clear that each and every person being sought out for support is likewise tempted by the same evils. Please pardon my bluntness, but is it truly wise for a homosexual to talk to another homosexual about the desire to sodomize his neighbor? Would it not be better to surround oneself with normal friends and holy people — and pray a lot? After all, I myself have a number of charming and physically beautiful women friends, but we don’t need to “support one another” in order to refrain from adultery or even the temptation to commit adultery.

Daniel A. Peck
Greenfield, Indiana

Copyright © 2003 by the New Oxford Review