#8 or 9, I’ve lost count: anonyreader: The last in today’s series of replies to my “Romoeroticism” piece. I’ll do a longish post in which I hope to give a better sense of what I’m going for here, but maybe not for another several hours–I may want to sleep on it a bit before the final (for today) roundup. Thanks to everyone who has written in!

This email, I note, was entitled, “Is ‘Romoeroticism’ Synonymous with ‘Homo-eroto-schism?'” To which one can only say, “Well, no!”

Dear Ms. Tushnet,

I hope you will forgive my belated response to your article “Romoeroticism” but I needed time to digest what it was you were saying and insure that I understood you properly. My preparation may yet be inadequate but I trust that you will point it out to me should you find it so.

Your proposal, that the Church begin again to formally recognize chaste, same-sex friendships seems to be ignorant of the culture the Church now finds herself surrounded by. Everything has become sexualized to such a degree that a formally innocuous phrase like “come and see” now contains implications of the most indecent nature (forgive me). In the wake of a scandal where the sexual exploitation of adolescents was passed over with a wink and a nod, does it seem prudent to formally reinvigorate a custom from the past which, in the present culture, might be misunderstood as a wink and a nod to same-sex sexual activity?

Further, it seems to me that your attempt to discover licit, even sanctified, expressions same-sex desire fails to address the concession to utter depravity made by so many an apologist. Attempts to find precedents in stories such as that of David and Jonathan has, time and again, been utterly rejected with assertions that there can be no valid parallel drawn between that experience and the experience of two same-sex attracted men. Is it surprising, in the current climate, that even the Catholic Church seems to have nothing to offer beyond the frail hope that one’s same-sex desires may cease? How does one escape the charge that one is simply reading justification for one’s appetites into Tradition, Scripture or what have you?

To the question “Is there anything in my love and desire that the Catholic Church can respect?” the only answer I can arrive at honestly is “No.” Even without sex, there is lust. Even without lust there is scandal. The occurrence of same-sex desire may not itself be a sin, but its every expression, both genital and affectionate, is. Chastity, properly understood, seems to imply the absence of same-sex desire. Therefore, in the midst of it, such an individual is caught in the paradox of learning not to love so that he or she may learn to love.

Eve says: I did say I’d post all critical emails. But I do think this position, in which cooking a bowl of soup for a sick lady becomes sinful if I think the sick lady is hot (“its every expression”), is untenable and forces us to reject an astonishing amount of beauty and love. I don’t think it is necessary.

I do think the changed culture, and the increased possibility of scandal, are real issues. I’ll address them in the roundup post… soon. Later today.