Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Prudishness and Chastity

I apologize for such sparse posting. I've been busy transitioning into the whole being an adult thing. And honestly, I've been a little depressed. A lot of that, I imagine, has to do with the transitioning. (Incidentally, every time I hear the word "transitioning," I think of some transgender person saying something like, "I'm transitioning right now" or something. As if it's some sort of separate state of being.) It's weird how one always gets depressed during life changes. Even good life changes. There's always something sad about changing.

Also, my life changes are somewhat difficult. I did not opt for the big firm world, so every day is sort of an uphill battle trying to figure out how to make the practice grow. (I'm sure big firm work is an uphill battle as well, but in a different sort of way.) Luckily I have a partner I'm working with to help me along. And my father. Who is aging right before my very eyes. An old lawyer himself, he is having such trouble seeing.

It's depressing for other reasons, too, I think. In that school (and I guess youth) are most definitely over. I can't say, "I'll get on with my life after school" anymore, and the pressure to get married, buy a house, have some kids, etc. is beginning to grow to critical mass. My dad, the other day, on the way home, said the strangest thing to me. He was trying to figure out my future, and he said something like, "I assume you're going to want to find a wife or something else someday?" There's two way to take this, I think. One, a live in girlfriend? or something. Or two, the more terrifying and peculiar one, a boyfriend. My dad, whom I have not told I am gay, is hardly a defender or supporter of homosexuality. In fact, he often refers to homosexuals as "faggots," but there was a certain tone, like an "I just want you to be happy, however you do it." It made me uncomfortable. For about a million reasons.

My dad is a great man. The best I know. So don't get the wrong idea. It was just an odd experience that, I think, highlights the reality of a person who chooses celibacy in his 20's for reasons that are not socially acceptable. I could tell my dad, of course, which I probably should, but that has not presented itself yet. No gay person enjoys telling his parents that. And then my friend, a girl I'd mentioned on here before, called me, very upset. She was crying after talking to another gay friend of hers. She was saying, to me of all people, that it's not fair what homosexuals have to deal with, that God should just fix it, because sexuality is such a core part of what makes a human what he is.

She believes that people are supposed to pair up to face all the other problems in life, so homosexuality (or any other sexual disability) is uniquely and especially crippling. I didn't necessarily disagree with her! But I had to explain to her that sexual release is not necessary to human flourishing. I don't know if she believed me, or believed that. I'm not sure how she'd actually frame it, but as a Protestant, she thinks (at least somewhat secretly, and I'm not sure she'd directly admit this) that homosexuals should try to get fixed (through God, or whatever) so that they can be happy and live their lives as God designed. There's a lot of difference between Protestants and Catholics here, I think, probably going back to how each views concupiscence, but I don't have anything developed here. I will say this, though, and as no criticism to my friend (very few of my friends would call me crying, pouring out empathy for me!), I often do not like how Protestants approach homosexuality.

Anyway, that was a long introduction, but I guess it leads into what I want to discuss here. I've mentioned this before, but it's something I genuinely struggle with sometimes, and I want to give it a fuller treatment. I'm referring to the problem of prudishness. I call it a problem because I genuinely think it is a problem. The religious world, at least the Catholic one, I think, does a good job of instilling the general idea that lasciviousness is a bad thing. At least, it's always a clear theme of religious teaching.

But I don't think it makes it clear, exactly, where the line is. When we're talking about masturbation, or sex, or whatever, it's pretty obvious. Avoid intentional sexual release outside of the appropriate context. Got it. But what if we're talking about looking at an attractive celebrity? This is always a difficult struggle, and I think not getting it quite right often leads to scrupulosity and prudishness. For example, I'm listening to the radio or reading some news story, and they mention some male celebrity. Assuming I don't recognize the name, I want to know who he is, what he looks like, who he is. So what do I do? If he's an actor, invariably if I image search him, I will get pictures of him without his shirt on. No big deal, right? Well, no, it often is a big deal. I usually quite like the pictures I see. Is this immoral? It doesn't seem like it, but what if I click on one of the pictures, even if it's just from a news site? Some near occasion of sin? Often, just looking at a few of the pictures will send my mind on a path it shouldn't go.

So, should I just avoid it altogether? Not search anyone's name? Is this reasonable? It sounds a little, I daresay, ridiculous. It sounds like the sort of people everyone mocks. Even the decision making process sounds ridiculous. It's just a picture. It was done out of genuine curiosity. Even if it were done out of sexual interest, it's hardly grave matter. It's as grave as a guy looking twice to catch a glimpse of a beautiful woman. I often feel like this is a uniquely modern problem. Everything is so absurdly hot. All the time. There is no popular culture that isn't. And I do not mean this as an excuse to sin. There is no justification for searching on, pleasuring myself, hiding it, etc., no matter how strong the temptation is. I just mean that the modern world is set up in a way that a person must seek prudishness to avoid lasciviousness. This, in my opinion, is a very serious problem.

Of the two, prudishness is clearly superior, but it is not desirable in itself. Sex and beauty are magnificent things to be appreciated with honesty and fervor. Chastity does not demand that we not enjoy our sexuality or not enjoy beauty, but instead demands that we enjoy our sexuality appropriately. For the homosexual, this just so happens to mean celibacy in many cases, but it also does not mean that every homosexual must join a monastery and read phone books all day. He is supposed to live his life, as anyone is.

I've no answer to this problem, and please do not think that I am justifying inappropriate behavior. Oftentimes the line is obviously clear. While it is more difficult to discern appropriateness in the moment (after one is already turned on), it is usually obvious after the fact. No, you didn't need to see the naked picture of the person. No, you didn't need to watch a sex scene from that movie because you were curious. But other times, I genuinely have no idea. One thing always leads to another, in that order.

And this, I suppose, has made me a bit depressed. As I move on to the next stage in my life, I have difficulties discerning what should limit me. The worst part about overly scrupulous thinking is not the results, necessarily, but the process. Scrupulous people probably often make the right choices. But the struggle they go through, the doubt, is unbearable. Moreover, I get annoyed that it's even a problem in the first place. While common to every man living in the modern world who believes in some level of decency, it is especially difficult for homosexuals, I think. Every slip is a reminder of your inescapable problem. So you want to avoid it all. In doing so, you turn yourself into a prude, a person who ends up hating life and the beauty it holds. No doubt a sin in its own sort of way.

32 comments:

  1. I just mean that the world is set up in a way that a person must seek prudishness to avoid lasciviousness.

    You mean the modern world, not the world in general, I take it? Like 'what results you get if you search for a celebrity's name and click imagesearch' and so on?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, that is what I mean. I should fix that. In fact, I am now.

      Delete
    2. Well, even more than that, I actually mean that oftentimes it feels like not hiding your head in the sand can mean putting yourself right next to lasciviousness. In other words, it often feels like that one has to seek prudishness to get anywhere near chastity.

      Delete
    3. I think I understand what you mean, yes. Just wanted to make sure I understood.

      Delete
  2. How many people have you told you're gay? Was it difficult?

    Also, you mentioned a while back that you were working on a post about how natural law and evolution relate, is that still in progress?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To the first question, four people. To the second, yes. It's one of the upcoming posts.

      Delete
  3. hope you feel better

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey, Joe. I was wondering if you could recommend any reading on religion and the Constitution in the United States. I have a improve my knowledge in that area for some discussions we will be having in class.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Joe, you have not posted in a while. I just want to say that I have your blog bookmarked, and I check it occasionally for new content. I need to learn more about sexual ethics. It seems like traditional views are being further marginalized every day - in some places, to express anything other than the contemporary liberal view is simply beyond the pale. It is "hateful" to EVEN HAVE the conversation about sexual ethics! So when your opponent thinks the very idea of dialogue on this issue is "bigoted," what are we to do?

    I have to beef up my game.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Joe,

    I'm converting to Catholicism and believe that your blogposts/comments, in addition to Dr. Feser's, Crude's and others' have been instrumental in my conversion. Catholics kept being right and my excuses kept being invalidated. Not to mention the fact that even the non-religious should notice how nonsensical the modern worldview is and the damage it has caused society.

    It takes balls to do what you do when everyone hates reason. God bless you and good luck with your studies/work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, and it is a great honor to be part of your conversion.

      Delete
  7. Seems you're obsessed with sex. WTF? Get over yourself. This much narcism is not healthy. Get a boyfriend. Tell your dad to go fuck himself. You're the faggot he speaks of.

    'Prudishness' is nasty. The word implies an unhealthy obsession with the sexual mores of others. You don't understand what the word means. Dude, you're afraid to open a newspaper in case you might see a picture of Chris Evans? Are you for real?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, this whole thing is pretty darn insane. And I say that as a Christian myself. The fact that this blog's author gets so anxious over viewing a celebrity's photo, and is so convinced that the ONLY way he can properly "orient" his sexuality is through chasteness/celibacy, would be sad if I hadn't encountered similar stories from other people (religious and non) online and in real life.

      The copious care to avoid "falling into the pitfalls of the modern world" is frightening and piteous. I've no doubt this author's a smart guy, and I wish him happiness/fulfillment with however he chooses to live his life, even if it's a way I may never understand.

      But just to be clear to other readers here: again, I appreciate his willingness to move beyond strictly religious justifications for opposing homosexuality, but the argument from natural law (or what have you) is hardly revolutionary or new. In fact, it just seems hopelessly obsolete, though I assume that is a virtue to the author, given the evils of the modern world.

      It was his choice to consider gayness an "inescapable problem," so I have a hard time sympathizing with his plight here. I can't believe these kinds of "sexual ethics" are still relevant to people in the 21st century west. Sigh.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, exactly. I mean, doesn't this guy know that truth changes to match whatever you want it to be?? If he's so stuck on applying obsolete gimmicks like "logic" and "reason" to his situation, then that's his own fault.

      Delete
    3. If he's so stuck on applying obsolete gimmicks like "logic" and "reason" to his situation, then that's his own fault.

      No kidding.

      It's bizarre to see such empty critical replies here that basically boil down to 'How dare you try to avoid thoughts you find impure!' and the usual vague angsting of "I can't believe you think what you do. I don't have an argument against it, but have you looked at today's date? GAWD."

      And I don't think this is merely some gay thing. In fact, I more and more think that, whatever mental weirdness there is in the LGBT diehards, it's largely secondary to the otherwise heterosexual paranoia about even entertaining the possibility their sexual desires or fantasies may not be sacred, save for those that offend the louder, crazier feminists today.

      Delete
    4. @Anonymous: Obviously, the author and main readers of this blog would believe that natural law is an objective, logical truth. I find this attitude arrogant and short-sighted and actually a bit harmful, but I'd never seek to legally or socially prevent anyone from espousing such views or living their life as per the mandates of natural law.

      I don't think questions of morals or ethics can ever be answered objectively, so the "truth" that works for one person may not work for another.

      But of course, let's write off any criticisms of the author's views as "unreasonable" and "empty." That's the spirit!

      Delete
    5. I find these sorts of criticisms funny. I'm sure you would apply this loose moral relativism to things like race and gender equality, rape, murder, and the like. Which is rich, considering the fact that your claims to subjective morality are Objective ones. This sort of stuff is just silly. I mean, why care about any morals, guys! So passe!

      Delete
    6. But of course, let's write off any criticisms of the author's views as "unreasonable" and "empty." That's the spirit!

      I've seen Joe K get into long arguments with people who disagree with his views, and do so respectfully, valuing their criticisms - precisely because they brought actual criticisms to the table. So far all you've done is say you dislike it all, you think it's silly and harmful, morality's not objective, also it's 2013 so obviously it's wrong.

      Yes, so far your criticisms have been empty, and don't have much reason at work in them, certainly as stated. I know, I know - it's dismissive. Consider that it may also be true.

      Delete
    7. @Joe: There are some societies though mostly in the past where rape was seen as a good or at least necessary thing. There have been and are places where slavery was seen as good and necessary to a functioning democracy. "Gender equality" is also a relatively modern construct. It's all subjective.

      @crude: i'd be interested in reading that. example plz? the comments I've browsed so far contain long discussions, but not really involving anyone who disagrees or approaches this from a non-essentialist framework.

      also, in response to your above quote: "it's largely secondary to the otherwise heterosexual paranoia about even entertaining the possibility their sexual desires or fantasies may not be sacred." i'm not arguing that "sexual desires or fantasies" are sacred, I'm just arguing that they don't have to be a bad or shameful thing. They can be, and if the author truly feels that his homosexual inclinations are immoral or otherwise damaging, then more power to him.

      Either way, you've dismissed my argument that "morality's not objective." Why is that an empty criticism?

      Delete
    8. Edit: Whoops, I mean to say that "they don't have to be a bad or shameful thing if they're not heterosexual or if they occur outside marriage" or whatever.

      Delete
    9. The argument has been dismissed because the argument hasn't been made. All you've done is said "morality isn't objective." That's not an argument. And even the developed form of that argument isn't a very good argument. For one, it misunderstands what morality even is, and for two, it is never an argument against the points I happen to be making here. Let's say morality is subjective in all ways (something you yourself don't even believe). So I choose not to have sex with men because I think it's wrong. Me doing this would be As Morally Valid as me choosing To have sex with men because I think it's Not immoral to do so. What you're actually doing is not saying "morality isn't objective" but instead you are just implicitly arguing that My morality is wrong without actually coming out and saying it. And you'll say things (like the other fellow did, whom you supported) like, "you should just go get a boyfriend!"---a moral statement concerning shoulds, what would be Better or Good for me to do. You're just framing it in this incredibly sophomoric way so as to avoid the actual arguments. It's a petty way to "do philosophy" without actually doing philosophy.

      And it's wholly irrelevant what some societies have done or think. Those societies are Wrong. That's the whole point of making an objective argument for morality. Societies that enslaved, murdered, raped, etc. are morally repugnant societies based on actual moral standards that are philosophically justifiable.

      I did not bring the rape, murder, equality stuff up as a way of somehow proving that objective morality exists. That you think that's what I was doing tells me you have little idea what's going on. I brought it up to point out the hypocrisy of people of your ilk. As I noted, most people bring up this argument not to justify universal moral subjectivism (which, incidentally, is an objective standard), but to instead just criticize a person making a moral argument. These same people would never be okay with my hunting and killing gay people because they are gay. Or enslaving them. Or torturing them. Etc. etc. They would hunt me down, Stop me, because they think my doing such things is "bad" or "not right" or "wrong" or "screwed up" or, what they actually mean: "immoral." If they think they're really clever, they'll try to hide behind some exceedingly juvenile argument like "It's not about Morality, it's about efficiency and not hurting people; this is just better for society, but it's not Actually about being Moral" pretending the whole time that their heavily moral statements are anything but. I mean, seriously, you say "[I]'m not arguing that "sexual desires or fantasies" are sacred, I'm just arguing that they don't have to be a bad or shameful thing" within two sentences of "Either way, you've dismissed my argument that "morality's not objective."

      Address the actual arguments I've made here or don't. The rest of this stuff is just freshman seminar nonsense.

      Delete
    10. I certainly think it's morally valid for you to "choose not to have sex with men because I think it's wrong." I don't think it's any more or less valid than choosing TO have sex with men. However, I think it's less morally valid for you to, for instance, oppose civil same-sex marriage, because in that case you're insisting that your moral code--that gay sex is wrong--ought to apply to everyone. That's not the only problem I have with your line of reasoning on this blog, but it's a big one. I don't think you "should" get a boyfriend or anything like that--if you don't want one then don't get one!--but it's your rather condescending refusal to even consider the possibility that maybe your moral code isn't and can't be universally applied with which I take issue.

      Because I still don't understand why "morality isn't objective" isn't an argument but "morality is objective" is an argument.

      Your last paragraph is a non-sequitur. I wouldn't be okay with you hunting or killing any people, and I doubt most people would be okay with that, but that still doesn't imply or necessitate an objective morality. Nor do I understand how I've been "hypocritical," unless you're arguing that one who claims that morality isn't objective cannot in good faith make broad moral claims of one's own. I can deem something immoral without implying that it's "objectively" immoral. I don't know why you can't grasp that.

      At any rate, I sincerely hope you find fulfillment in this life. No sarcasm. I'll admit that I do feel a bit bad for you in a way, just as I'm sure you feel a bit bad for me so egregiously living in sin. But your arguments on this blog aren't nearly as convincing as you and your main readers seem to think they are, namely because you have never adequately justified why an objective moral code exists and why "natural law" has any bearing on a modern, allegedly secular society.

      The fact that your dad possibly wanting you to be happy makes you uncomfortable, along with the fact that you suffer from "unbearable" "overly scrupulous thinking" when confronted with a picture of a shirtless guy, speaks volumes about your insecurities. You say you "get annoyed that it's even a problem in the first place," but you are the one who decided to make it a "problem" at all. I guess it's just easier to pass the buck and say that it's out of your hands--that good ol' Natural Law says you can't, or God says that you can't, with the result being an objective morality that you are in no place to control or refute.

      I have addressed your arguments. You just don't like those arguments and disagree with them. But that doesn't mean I haven't made any arguments. I'm sorry you feel that being gay is an "inescapable problem" that leads you to consider having to "avoid it all." Sounds like a miserable way to live.

      Delete
    11. it's your rather condescending refusal to even consider the possibility that maybe your moral code isn't and can't be universally applied with which I take issue.

      Where does it come across that Joe 'refuses to consider the possibility', as opposed to his having considered it and, upon reflection, decided it was incorrect? Simply because he believes his view is right after all?

      All you've really said here is that your problem is that Joe (and likely others) have come to a conclusion you disagree with.

      Because I still don't understand why "morality isn't objective" isn't an argument but "morality is objective" is an argument.

      Neither is an argument - they are claims. Arguments are things you give to justify your claims - which Joe and others do in other places, including on this site. You really don't get this?

      Nor do I understand how I've been "hypocritical," unless you're arguing that one who claims that morality isn't objective cannot in good faith make broad moral claims of one's own. I can deem something immoral without implying that it's "objectively" immoral. I don't know why you can't grasp that.

      Do you demand people be as open-minded about murder, or molestation, or robbery, or various other things as you do about sex? Why are you zeroing in on Joe K's belief that a certain sexual act is immoral, but you're not taking issue with his beliefs that lying is wrong, that murder is wrong, that rape is wrong?

      It becomes difficult to answer those questions without becoming a hypocrite in the process.

      But your arguments on this blog aren't nearly as convincing as you and your main readers seem to think they are, namely because you have never adequately justified why an objective moral code exists and why "natural law" has any bearing on a modern, allegedly secular society.

      And so far, you haven't gone even a single step towards supporting this claim. In fact, you've indicated that you're not particularly clear on what it even means to give an argument - you seem to think it's a matter of saying 'You're wrong!' or 'I believe something else!' and that's pretty much the end of it, claim refuted, unless the claim is yours.

      What you seem to really mean here is that Joe's arguments are bad, because you haven't felt compelled to accept them. But that's a ridiculous standard. The arguments are what they are, and some people are immune to reason, or reason on a particular subject. Good arguments aren't necessarily arguments that win unanimous and instant consent.

      speaks volumes about your insecurities.

      I think the one person who's showing off some tremendous insecurities here is the person who feels so threatened by the existence of arguments for claims they dislike that they keep on railing against them and making unsubstantiated claims, all in the process of giving nil support to said claims. The very idea that maybe, just maybe, the personal front you put up on this topic, your ability to stamp your feet and say 'I like this way therefore it's a valid way' may not actually make the morality you want good, or reasonable, or anything else seems to drive you nuts. You should really find a way to accept the possibility that you may be wrong about morality, and learn to live with that.

      I have addressed your arguments. You just don't like those arguments and disagree with them. But that doesn't mean I haven't made any arguments.

      No, your lack of arguments and seeming inability to make any arguments that go beyond mere assertions and catty claims means you haven't made any arguments.

      But hey, continue to stamp your feet, condemn, and produce no reason or arguments in the meantime. Whatever offers a salve for your personal lack of pride or confidence in your life's choices, I suppose.

      Delete
    12. Crude,

      I logged in to respond, but I think you responded better than I would have. Thanks.

      IC,

      What he said.

      Both of you,

      Have a Merry Christmas.

      Delete
    13. I will respond to this, though: "Your last paragraph is a non-sequitur. I wouldn't be okay with you hunting or killing any people, and I doubt most people would be okay with that, but that still doesn't imply or necessitate an objective morality. Nor do I understand how I've been "hypocritical," unless you're arguing that one who claims that morality isn't objective cannot in good faith make broad moral claims of one's own. I can deem something immoral without implying that it's "objectively" immoral. I don't know why you can't grasp that."

      No, I can grasp it. And it's an absurd claim. Alright, you subjectively think it's wrong for me to hunt and kill people for sport. You subjectively think it's wrong for me to change civil law to ban gay marriage. Alright, how about, as a hypothetical, I subjectively think you're wrong on both those fronts? We're both right and both wrong. I'm acting equally moral doing whatever I do, hunting, killing, raping, discriminating, as are you, not doing these things. It's utterly worthless to point this out or even talk about it in such a case. Or how about when you say, "stop trying to ban gay marriage" or "stop discriminating against gay people," I say, "who cares, objective morality doesn't exist"? How's that fair?

      The fact that you write this: "However, I think it's less morally valid for you to, for instance, oppose civil same-sex marriage, because in that case you're insisting that your moral code--that gay sex is wrong--ought to apply to everyone." says to me that you really don't adhere to the absurdity you claim here. How can I be "less morally valid"? And what's the difference if I impose my moral code on others? Is it perhaps Objectively immoral to do this? But aren't you doing the same exact thing on others when you stop them from hunting and killing and stop them from discriminating? Or is that imposing morals thing subjective too? If it is subjective, fine. Then I disagree with you. I don't think it's wrong to force my morals on others. So, what now?

      Delete
    14. Crude, do you really think I require "a salve for your personal lack of pride or confidence in your life's choices," or that my actual motivation for voicing my disagreement with the blog's author is an attempt to put up a personal front in order to "make the morality you want good, or reasonable, or anything else"?

      You seem to assume that disagreement with you on this issue is tantamount to being "immune to reason," which is an incredibly condescending way of approaching a moral argument. Of course I may be wrong about sexual ethics; do you entertain the possibility that you may be wrong as well?

      I'd like to address the rest of your comment, since I think it's problematic for several reasons, but before I bother I'd like to know if you think that any counterargument I present is really just an attempt to justify my "life's choices." As though a debate secretly rages in my soul as to the morality of my sexual code of ethics, and I'm just lashing out at bloggers instead of my own self doubt.

      Because if that's where you're coming from, then I feel like we're just coming from diametrically opposed places from which to view the world, and while I don't believe you're necessarily wrong about any of this, I can't help but feel that you can't or won't afford me the same courtesy.

      Delete
    15. Crude, do you really think

      I certainly suspect, in this case. And what - you're the only one who can psychoanalyze people who disagree with you?

      You seem to assume that disagreement with you on this issue is tantamount to being "immune to reason,"

      No, not at all. Plenty of people disagree with me - mormons, atheists, many other Christians, etc. I don't automatically regard them as being immune to reason. I even think someone can be quite reasonable, yet still arrive at different conclusions at times. I haven't been impressed with your arguments at all, and I think your replies have been far less than convincing. Hell, you don't even seem to really understand some of what's being said here, or are going out of your way to not understand it.

      but before I bother I'd like to know if you think that any counterargument I present is really just an attempt to justify my "life's choices."

      I think what you've displayed, thus far, is absolutely underwhelming. And since you've shown you're more than willing to psychoanalyze people who disagree with you, I decided to reply in kind. If you don't want to experience that, then don't engage in it. I'm actually loathe to do so until I'm prompted by exactly that.

      I can't help but feel that you can't or won't afford me the same courtesy.

      The courtesy you're apparently asking for here is exactly the courtesy you didn't extend to others.

      Delete
    16. >>'Prudishness' is nasty.

      Hmmm. Ironic given what was written after: "You don't understand what the word means."

      You know what's nasty? Anal sex. (No offense, Joe.)

      Delete
  8. The word implies an unhealthy obsession with the sexual mores of others.

    Can you tell by behavior? Like showing up on someone's blog and furiously lecturing someone about what their sexual habits should be?

    ReplyDelete
  9. This may be none of my business to post, but don't any of you worry, Joe K. hasn't vanished into oblivion or anything. I've silently followed Joe's post since his Reddit AMA.

    And the imfamous, much admired and much maligned, Joe K. (AKA Hurrah_for_Karamazov) is still posting.

    http://www.reddit.com/user/Hurrah_for_Karamazov

    Seriously, this is good stuff, his posts. I'm currently attempting to start Ignatious' Spiritual Exercises, one of the principle things needing to work on is 'well ordering' my sexuality (straight, just want to be disciplined and not fall to the pitfalls of the modern world) and Joe's posts about natural law, clear and concise explanations, especially his casual yet erudite language, have helped me make some very important first steps.

    PS
    Joe, I apologize for weirdly intellectually stalking your posts, but you do a lot of good in illuminating this complicated issue. Your words haven't just been solace--and clear intellectual-spiritual direction-- to struggling Homosexual Catholics but to all Catholics contending with orienting their Sexuality to its proper end.
    So, on my behalf at the very least, KTHNXBAITTYL.

    -Hearts'n'Spades

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't mind at all. I appreciate you making this comment. I was gone for a while there!

      Delete