a good bit of reading for you: all three of the dialogues are much to the point. but the third would be most helpful. Here you have an analysis of St. Aelred's two intense friendships; a presentation of the best point of view from which to look at the matter. I am sure you will gain an insight from this reading which will be of help in your concern about your love for Dick. It will also relieve your fear.

Then, too, you ought to face squarely the issue that there is nothing sinful or wrong in being part of a mutual homophilic attraction, or in finding that your emotions draw you towards deep and intense friendships with your own sex. Where sin comes in is in the expression of this love sexually. Here is the homosexual part of the matter: it is the expression of homophilic love sexually. The sexual activity engaged in frustrates the proper end of the sex act, which is procreation, and it is contrary to the end purpose of this creative activity in man. As such it is sinful.

One hears all sorts of arguments that homosexuality is "natural" to the homophile. But this is begging the question. The real question is "What is natural to Man?"; not to a man or to a particular temperament or emotion. The sexual act apart from marital intercourse is for mankind a misuse of the means of procreation: it is a frustration of the natural purpose of sex and the pleasures accompanying the act. "Natural inclinations" of a person engaged in sexual activity are directly concerned with creation itself and not primarily with the fulfillment of a particular desire. With regard to the sexual expression of homosexual activity, we have to face them for what they are and not attempt to rationalize them into being something else. Such activity must be faced and confessed, and the remedies for sinful actions applied.

But your concern seems to be not so greatly concerned with the sexual ac-tivities (I'm glad to see that you have an understanding of this question) as with homophilic relationships in themselves. In this regard I am exceedingly glad that you have found such a wonderful friend and companion in Dick. I am glad simply because you are being forced to see the difference between loving someone and "always ending up in bed." This latter is a danger, but if you face it as a temptation you need not fear getting too close to someone. I think, however, that your greatest danger and temptation has been towards a puritanical outlook, a certain narrowness, a virtual inhumanity. You have all but been denying the "hallowing of matter," as the Thomists as the Thomists put it: denying the potential holiness in man which draws us to God.

And here is where the "squaring of your relationship with Dick and with the moral teachings and discipline of the Church" enters the picture. To love our Lord does not mean the denial of being human. I am afraid that in your love of our Lord you have not been loving the fact that in the Incarnation He was made Man: that very intimately and intensely He knows human nature. This is what Christmas is about: that is why we celebrate in the way we do! I think you have been afraid of human nature: both His, which is perfection itself, and our own, which is growing and becoming perfect in Him.

This sort of thinking has inhibited your love of others and has made it one sided; it has nearly killed your humanity and it has been killing your friendships. What is meant is this:

Your love of beauty in a person rejoiced in getting to know that person, becoming attached to him. But the would-be Puritan in you said. "My . but this is dangerous: it will only end up one way!" Your narrowness of un-

25