themselves can know whether or not a homosexual relationship is elevating, wholesome, uplifting?

Society has set up procedures for regulating heterosexual relations. A child of a certain age is allowed to date, and then later to experiment. This is supposed to lead at a proper age to marriage. But there is no allowable homosexual dating-although certainly there is a great deal of it, and no serious questions are raised as long as no one suspects the truth. and young people of the same age are involved. But society which raises eyebrows when a man of 30 dates a girl of 16, will never allow a man of 30 to date a boy of 16. Indeed, the only guide the homesexual has for making any sort of responsible decision may be to follow the laws on the "age of consent." And yet even when the man of 30 makes overtures to the man of 21, his activity is likely to be sinful in that he has little to offer the younger man except a life of illegal unhappiness. Can he therefore agree with St. Paul that things that are lawful, still may not be for the good of the neighbor? Wholesome and upbuilding?

There are many, of course, who think that St. Paul was homosexual. He never married, and he agonized over the "thorn in his flesh" which he never explained-and why not if it were some disease? He said "the things that I would not, these I do," which is a classic statement of the sexual problem, as has been pointed out in our own time by a Bishop who has been "shelved" by the Church because "he couldn't leave young men alone."

If St. Paul were homosexual, then his condemning of homosexual acts as sinful, is doubly interesting. He lived and worked in an area of the world where homosexual practices were rife. and often religious. He worries about the "desires of the flesh" and says "it is better to marry than to burn."

He says in Ephesians 5, "Let there be no filthiness, nor silly talk, nor levity; but instead let there be thanksgiving. Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure man has any inheritance in the Kingdom of Christ." He warns against "self-abasement" as having no value in checking "the indulgence of the flesh." And in I Corinthians 6, he said: "Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. And some were such as you."

دو

But then later he says: "No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful and he will not let you be tempted beyond your srength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it." (I. Cor. 10:14ff). On the other hand, in Romans I, he condemns those who although they knew God, did not give thanks to him, but "their senseless minds were darkened

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves . . . the men . . . gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error." The result of this he says, is envy, strife, gossip, persons who are disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

The summation, however, is in Romans 2: "Therefore you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same thing"

All

have sinned and fall short of the glory of God . . . but let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies. to make you obey their passions. "Do

9