First, a heterosexual couple kissing romantically can remain chaste while doing so. A gay couple cannot. Romantic gestures between memebers of the same sex are always unchaste because they are disordered.

Second. In 1965? Didn’t happen. And, there was no policy to expell anyone for kissing. It would have been only a matter of confession. That is how it would have been handled because the church understood sexual/romantic acts between members of the same sex as discreet acts, not as a matter of identity. Such discreet acts were viewed as moral failures, and the temptation toward those acts as character flaws to be fought with the will aided by grace.

Simply stating that this was a matter for expulsion does not make it the case. It is not a parallel to race and was understood by Catholics and Protestants very differently.

Now whether such a hypothetical couple would have gotten beat up? In those times when street fights were common, quite possibly.

Your own words betray you. Two chaste young men holding hands, kissing, dating at Notre Dame in 1965 would have got them expelled if they lived long enough for the university to get the paperwork done.

On the other hand, I know of a then divorced and civilly remarried man who was not barred from UND graduate school.

Now there is today and always has been a policy against sex. Any student at any time in Notre Dame history caught in a sexual act with another person is expelled period without regard to the sex of the other person. We do not have and never have had a policy prohibiting students from admission based on sexual orientation.

I am serious about this, Katherine. And I am going to say it as many times as I have to for you to understand it perfectly clearly. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned there is no teaching against homosexuality, only homosexual acts. Before the 1970’s the Catholic Church never even recognized (nor did most of society) that there was such a thing as homosexuality–a concept only originating in the 19th Century. So not only were there no policies barring homosexuals from entering the University–the very idea of sexual orientation was not employed in the era in which you are speaking.

In the Catholic setting the question of homosexual acts was never treated differently from other sexual sins. One goes to confession. That is it. Just as there is no identity tag for those who use prostitutes, there was no identity tag in Catholic thought for those who have same-sex sex.

Your method of projecting the situation of race (which was disgraceful) onto sexual orientation is not sound. Unless you can come up with specific cases, I will not accept the charges you are making.

Having said that, defining truth and morals is only a part of the mission she is called to do. That mission is carried out by human beings, with all of the failings that are the nature of human beings.

When my family first moved to Washington, DC, I was exposed to the practice of having some Catholics sit in the back of the Church and receive communion after others did. Those asked to sit in the back were also not allowed to send their children to the parish school they were not “canonical members of the parish” (the archdiocese, at that time, had an overlay with two sets of parish boundaries). I know you, Father, would agree with the conclusion I quickly came to at the time, which is that this system was not in keeping with our Catholic faith. I soon gathered with other liberal Catholics to see what could be done to change this arrangement. We met with Archbishop O’Boyle, who was very kind and supportive. He declined our request for any immediate action but asked us to be patient and to work with him for gradual change. While we had a few moments of tension with the Archbishop, and pursued some unilateral moves, we generally followed his counsel. I can’t attest that each and every one of us in this initiative were perfectly orthodox Catholics on every issue. I do realize that while the white parishes did not accept Blacks as members of the parish, the Church never denied that Blacks were not members of the Church Universal through baptism.

Through the efforts of liberal Catholics (and I have no option to use anything but that term because that is the only description that was applied to us at the time that I can post in a forum open to children), with aid of our faith the Christ the Lord, the Church on this matter was certainly ahead of secular society and, I believe, helped pave the way for the same reforms in the secular world.

With that as prelude, I have some memory as to the ways homosexuals were treated in, say, 1965 (just to pick a starting point). A known homosexual certainly could have been expelled from any church related (Catholic or Protestant) college or university. Violence and police indifference were not uncommon. Criminal sanctions against homosexuals existed with the support of the Archdiocese well into the 1980’s. Economic sanctions were common and legal (and still are today across the river in Virginia).

There was a movement to re-vision how society responds to homosexuals. The movement included radical and moderate elements. Its loose agenda included laudable and objectionable items. The movement included sinners and saints.

My only point here is that I am pleased of certain revision of Christian and social responses to homosexuals occurred on some items since 1965. Truth requires us to admit that this revisioning would not have occurred without a certain flawed social movement. We are in no way obligated to accept everything that movement has advocated and we are free to hold that it has now achieved all of its proper and legitimate goals and has no further usefulness. But we are not free to deny the Truth that on some matters, they may have had a keener insight to the teachings of Jesus Christ than most of the churchmen at the time.

If you are familiar with Catholic moral theology, you will know that it has always been act based exclusively. Membership in the Catholic Church has never been reserved to heterosexuals which by the way is a modern concept. Methodists, however, have excluded homosexuals from their membership over the past century. So, yes, we do have different histories and practices. The present Methodist teaching against acts but not against inclinations represents a return to the position the Catholic Church has always maintained. These are facts.

Are you under the illusion that Catholics never ran homosexuals out of our insitutions like the Methodist did? It is your view that it was only African Americans who once suffered exclusion from some Catholic insitutions?

I think we can equally embrace Catholic revisionism when it restores the Church to her principles of justice and love. The Methodist Church was hardly particularly harsh in its practices towards homosexuals.

He was not too forthcoming on the particulars of his ecclesiastical politics–yet. But, he is the pastor of a decent sized church in Virginia without rainbow banners or references to “inclusion” beyond good Southern hospitality on its website. When I asked him about the votes in the General Conference he sighed that “ecclesiastical democracy is a fickle witch,” by which he gave nothing away (it was a bit like I imagine talking with Rowan Williams would be). While not revealing his own position, he was full of witty commentary on current denominational protestantism, the implication of which was that Rome has the better system.

He said he had a lot of ex-Romans in his congregation and that they often are the majority among his batches of new members. They are the bitterest of his new congregants, he says (which made me secretly smiled–we have suffered enough with these malcontents, now its his turn). But he, a fairly crypto Catholic himself, quiets them by reminding them that to criticize Catholicism is for a Methodist to publicly dishonor ones grandmother. Interesting. He might make a wonderful guest on Marcus Grodi some day.

Generally speaking, revisionism is the altering of the ancient faith/morality. I am glad the Methodists have come around. But, from a Catholic point of view, this is not a revision but a reversion.