Madam, - Kevin Myers takes me to task (May 12th) for pointing out that sections of the last major document of the Catholic Church on homosexuality are offensive. His arguments against the opinions I expressed in a letter to this newspaper, however, are confused and unstructured.
Failing to advance a coherent argument, he descends to the level of crudity.
In my letter I referred to the document's statement that when the homosexual condition is claimed not to be disordered "and homosexuality is consequently condoned or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behaviour to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground and irrational and violent reactions increase". I wrote that this statement was offensive.
Offensive statements cause pain and hurt. For the vulnerable, they can lead to feelings of self-loathing. Equally seriously, such statements fuel homophobic tendencies which in turn can lead to violence against homosexual people. In the last few days the gardaí and the family of a gay man, who was savagely beaten up because of his sexual orientation, have appealed for anyone with information on the brutal assault to come forward.
Church documents must avoid language that appears to condone such consequences.
Mr Myers further implies that my focus on the offensiveness of some of the language used in the document reflects "the visceral loathing of Catholicism which is almost 'de rigueur' in salon society". This is simply untrue. I am a Catholic. My spiritual home is the Catholic Church. This does not mean that in reflecting on moral issues I must put all my critical faculties on hold.
I have studied the biblical arguments against homosexuality advanced by all the major Christian churches and examined the natural law argument put forward by the Catholic Church. I have listened, also, to the stories of homosexual men and women and heard their views on the significance of their orientation for them.
Assessing church teaching in the light of this research does not imply "a visceral loathing for Catholicism".
I also query Mr Myers's focus on male homosexual acts. Does he not know that non-physical intimacy and mutuality are as much part of homosexual relationships as of heterosexual relationships?
Does he not see that were society and the church to acknowledge and support lifelong exclusive homosexual relationships, all would benefit? Does he even know that homosexual people form such relationships? Like much of Kevin Myers's writing, this article is offensive. It has not contributed to the debate on homosexuality. - Yours, etc,
ÁILÍN DOYLE,
Balkill Road,
Howth.