Emotion runs high and logic runs out the window
2000-08-24

You should see my mail.

It all started several weeks ago, when I wrote a column on the sexual sin of -- well, let’s just call it M. (In order to protect the sensitivities of the many people out there who apparently have a big problem with the word, but no problem whatsoever with the actual activity it signifies.) I have no interest whatsoever in writing another article on that particular sin itself, but I would like to address some of the philosophical (or not so philosophical) issues raised within the avalanche of mail which followed that column.

The mail could be divided quite neatly into two groups. The first group consisted of people thanking me for speaking out on an important subject. Many shared very personal stories about their own struggle with this particular sin, and the damage it has done to their lives. Those letters were all signed -- every single one, first name and last, return address, phone number -- the whole works.

And then there were the other letters. These were the people who disagreed with me. But they didn’t do it nicely. They were angry. They were nasty. They were accusatory. And they were all -- repeat all -- sent anonymously. Not a return address to be found. Not even a name. Nothing. So much for the courage of their convictions.

So I obviously can’t respond to these people. I could, of course, respond to the anonymous e-mails. But I felt a little weird discussing a topic so intimate one-on-one with people who refused to identify themselves. I therefore invited these people, via e-mail, to identify themselves and we could continue the discussion. Only one taker, and we’ve proceeded to have a very positive on-line discussion. From everyone else -- nothing.

But on to the “arguments.” I address them mostly out of a desire to demonstrate what apparently passes for critical thinking and moral decision-making these days. It’s pretty scary. The quotes are from actual, anonymous letters sent to me. The spelling, punctuation and phrasing remain unchanged from the letters.

Who are you to say what God thinks and what is right and what is wrong what is best, sin or not? It never ceases to amaze me how many people honestly believe that I sit around making this stuff up. I don’t.

Everything I wrote in that article reflected the consistent teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, the Church instituted by Christ, the Church He promised He would be with until the end of time. I found the information in the same place I find all of my other information on sexual morality: The Catechism of the Catholic Church. Look is up for yourself: paragraph 2352. And you wonder why so many people are turning away from the Catholic church. Every time you turn around there are new rules you have to go by. What Church was that again? Certainly not the Catholic Church I know. This particular prohibition goes all the way back to the beginning, 2000 years ago. Most of the other teachings do as well. And the “new” teachings are generally just old teachings applied to new situations.

Sex with a partner is not the only language for sex. According to the Church, according to John Paul II, and according to the bitter experience of millions of victims of the sexual revolution, it is -- at least the only authentic language. Of course, you’re perfectly free to believe something else. Just remember that, on Judgment Day, you’ll have to explain why you were right and 2000 years of Church teaching was wrong. And there will be a whole lot riding on your answer.

Isn’t it better than cheating on your spouse, which is adultery? In logic class, I believe we called this the “false dilemma.” Since when are our options so limited? So a man whose wife is dying has to either masturbate or mess around with another woman? Isn’t sexual self-control an option? Isn’t the option we’re all called to -- to control of our own bodies? The assumption here is that we’re slaves to our sex drives -- an assumption which the Church does not share. The Church, rather, calls us to gain control over out sex drive, and all of our other drives, so we can put our bodies totally and completely at the service of love.

You must not like sex at all. That is called being a hipacrit in my book. Whoever wrote that book obviously didn’t have a spell-checker. Nevertheless, this particular argument (if you can call it that) appeared, in one form or another, in literally every negative letter I received. I’m obviously anti-sex. I must hate sex. I must think sex is a bad thing.

These people obviously don’t read my column very often. There are probably very few people in the world more pro-sex than I am -- just as there are very few institutions more pro-sex than the Catholic Church. In fact, it’s only when we really understand human sexuality as a gift from God that we can fully appreciate its incredible beauty. The Church tells us that God created sex as a beautiful, powerful expression of committed, sacramental love -- an act so powerful that it sets into motion the creation of new human life, so powerful that it bonds these people together for a lifetime.

And whenever we take that powerful language out of the context in which it belongs, we risk damage. Serious damage. It doesn’t take a genius to see that damage. It’s everywhere in our society -- in the broken marriages, in the broken families, in the fatherless children, in the sexually full but emotionally empty lives we see around us.

I wanted to tell you how much this recent article meant to me. I have often looked up porn sites on the ‘net, and always have felt guilty about the masturbation that accompanied it. I was relieved to read such an open, honest discourse . . . my wife and I have a better relationship since my conversion.

A signed, sealed and delivered letter, from a man with the true courage of his convictions. Thank you.