The Church's teaching on homosexuality

Front the convenor; Roman Catholic Caucus, Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement Sir, Your leader of 15 June ("Bishop Crowley: the need for caution") goes to great lengths to criticise a Mass held to celebrate a worthy occasion, namely 25 years of friendship and commitment to justice between two people who happen to be gay. Both men had done remarkably valuable work in pursuit of social justice for the poor and the vulnerable, although you give credit only to one of them. Because one of the two friends dissents from the official Church teaching on homosexual relationships, and because a bishop of the Church is presumed to have known this, you devote half of your front page and the whole of your leader column to the story.
I would guess that Mass is celebrated most weeks for couples who dissent from official Church teaching, for instance by having sex before marriage or hy using contraceptives. I do not recall any such occasions being reported in your paper with the same prominence, or at all. Is this because the Mass is, after all, above and beyond specific occasion of dissent? Or have you only reported this event because the two friends are gay? If the latter, let us at least be clear on what the Church actu ally teaches, namely that friendship is good, including friendship between two gay people (see the 1979 Pastoral Guideline issued by the Bishops Conference of England and Wales). Bishop Crowley was perfectly entitled to associate himself with a Mass in celebration of something the Church recognises as morally good.
1 happen to think our Church is wrong to condemn gay sexual relationships as objectively disordered, even if it affirms gay friendships as morally good. I simply do not believe that Our Lord's command that we love one another somehow excludes sex from a loving and committed relationship between two people of the same gender. You may, of course, disagree but you cannot seriously assert that this deeply held belief is equivalent to desiring "the undermining and eventual destruction of the Church's teaching on sexual ethics".
Yours faithfully, MICHAEL EGAN London NI.
From an unnamed correspondent
Sir. I wish to make an observation on the "gay thanksgiv
ing" story (Report, June 15).
I am homosexual. Twenty years ago 1 was in a long-term full homosexual relationship. I had left the Church for some years, then tried to return and went through a period of trying to reconcile leading a "gay" lifestyle and practising my Faith.
It tore me apart. A confessor eventually withheld absolution, as he discerned that I had no real intention of leaving my partner and therefore avoiding such sin in the future.
My partner — who was not remotely religious — would not have agreed to a non-physical relationship. I knew in my heart of hearts that the priest was right, and I shall he eternally grateful to him for his action.
I left my partner, causing me great emotional and financial upheaval, but I knew that I had done the right thing.
It seems from your report that the goal-posts have been moved since these days. While I don't regret for one moment abandoning the practi se of homosexuality and fully embracing the Faith, I would DOI like to think that there is one rule for friends of bishops. and another for the rest of us.
NAME AND ADDRESS WITHHELD.