(seeming almost stronger than in most heterosexuals) overriding all contradiction.

Of essence is the homophile's attitude toward his homosexuality. Few churches have room for him if he is frank, healthy and self-accepting. If he condemns and fights that part of himself, then theoretically, the Church should welcome him as a penitent sinner, and try to aid him in self-castration. Since all men are considered sinners, is the homosexual worse than the rest?

But are even the advanced Churches offering the homophile a grudging half-a-loaf? He might be grateful for that much, when so recently he was offered a stone, or dry crumbs at best. But is Ananias' stingy offering enough for the Church to give or for homophiles to receive? Homophiles have given unstintingly to the Church. If all the hidden homophiles, male and female, were suddenly removed from the Church today, or from the roster of the Saints, most church youth groups, choirs, seminaries, Holy Orders and charitable work would collapse. Up to now, these hidden millions have suffered in individual guilt-ridden silence, given their all to the Church, yet knowing they would be driven out if their secret were revealed.

Modern Churches have all but subordinated the Love ideal to procreation (a concern foreign to the early Church), but surely Love is something more than rutting. Despite a few random, probably mistranslated verses, the homophile can see no consistent scriptural or other reason to degrade that Love which David praised as "passing the love of women," and to which Ruth gave her inspired pledge.

Ought we view the Church as a jealous keeper of traditional intolerance, or as guardian of man's best instincts, a sound moral guide in a changing world? The Church in the past moved from an anti-sexual position to one approving and sanctifying heterosexuality. Can we hope that it may in time approve the love of David? First hostile to all sex, considering heterosexual marriage a necessary evil-allowable for weaklings-the Church in time espoused heterosexuality as sacramental and a Christian virtue. Now many Churches even frown on unwed clergymen. And the notion of heterosexual romantic love has been blown up in a few centuries from a despised heresy (which homosexuals were supected of originating) to one of the most pervasive, spiritualized ideals in Christendom.

Meanwhile, all homophile acts, loves or leanings have until this decade suffered increasing religious condemnation as the vilest of abominations. Whatever a few honestly Christian ministers have said in private to the contrary, this destructive attitude was the official dogma of all Churches until those scandal-induced re-evaluations in England gave homosexuals a few grudging considerations.

If the homophile asks for a loaf, will the Church give him a stone, as in the past? Or is the Church's Christian responsibility fulfilled by granting him half a loaf? Some Churches now reluctantly concede that the homosexual condition is not of itself evil, yet they still demand that homophiles deny themselves the rewards of homophile love. Are they not still maintaining an impassible gulf between the homophile and the Church? Will the Churches ever be Christian enough to bridge that gulf? -Lyn Pedersen

5