The Observer is a Student-run, daily print & online newspaper serving Notre Dame & Saint Mary's. Learn more about us.



More to life than sex

Letter to the Editor | Thursday, November 15, 2007

I’m writing in response to all the uproar over the “Gay? Go to Hell” shirts, especially Nikki Huiras’s letter (“Re-evaluating ‘teachings’ on homosexuality,” Nov. 15). First, let me being by saying that the people wearing these shirts were executing an abominable act. It’s appalling that there are people on this campus who actually seek for another human being to be condemned to hell. The Church in its holy authority does not even condemn people to hell, recognizing that God alone has that ability. We, as Christians, are called to love. Wishing that someone be damned for eternity, away from the loving embrace of God, is entirely contrary to what Christianity would ever hope to accomplish.

After reading the responses to Mary Daly’s excellent letter concerning the Church’s teaching on homosexuality (“Campus, Catholicism, and homosexuality,” Nov. 13), it became apparent to me that a deep misunderstanding is present among those who chastise the Church’s position on the issue. It becomes very easy to separate a homosexual person from the homosexual acts when we realize that sexuality is not the quintessence of human joy. A human can live a completely fulfilling, actualized, and happy life without utilizing his sexuality. It is common to find those who believe that homosexual intercourse is acceptable, agreeing that masturbation and pornography are natural, even healthy, outlets of a person’s sexuality. The contrary is true. Chastity breeds greater respect for oneself and others, especially those whom the person loves romantically. The Church recognizes this fact, which is precisely why priestly celibacy is such a facet of church life. Thus, the Church, through encouraging homosexuals to a life of celibacy, is working toward bringing them greater happiness, rather than denying them enjoyment.

Additionally, I would like to point out that we are perfectly able to decide that actions are evil, but not people. Indeed, in every case when bad actions are present, we are called to have even greater mercy, forgiveness, and love for the person. Why else is the phrase “Hate the sin, not the sinner?” so familiar to us on a Catholic campus? Indeed, in almost every circumstance, there are mitigating factors diminishing the person’s culpability. Nonetheless, we as Christians and as members of a functioning society have the ability and right to say that a particular action is against moral code. Without this ability, we could have no law. The moral relativism that questions our ability to decide that extra-marital sexual activity is wrong also, when consistently understood, would lead us to question our ability to say that theft, rape, and murder are wrong, if for no other reason than that the people committing these crimes feel fulfilled by doing them.

Nathan Loyd


Keough Hall

Nov. 15