were the only species to demonstratenhomosexual desires and behavior, thisnwould hardly be grounds for categorizingnthem as ‘unnatural.’ Most of the behaviornwhich human societies most admirenis unique to humans: this is indeednthe main reason it is respected. No onenimagines that human society ‘naturally’nresists literacy because it is unknownnamong other animals.”*nWithout an accurate understanding ofnCatholic morality, Mr. Boswell’s booknis what a history of science would be ifnwritten by a man who knew nothing ofnscientific experiments. No matter hownmany learned treatises he read in nonmatter how many languages, he couldnnot write an accurate history.nIf that were all there were to it, thenbook would not be too disturbing, but,nalong with its other defects, it createsna false impression about the characternof men living in the communion ofnsaints. If you recall the Apostles’ Creed,nyou will recall the words: “I believe innthe Holy Ghost, the Holy CatholicnChurch, the communion of saints,…”nThose of us who believe that thesenwords are true feel something specialn*If any reader of this review would like tonavoid the ignorance in which Boswell isnmired, in addition to Maclntyre’s book Inwould recommend Natural Law and NaturalnRights by John Finnis (Oxford UniversitynPress, 1980) and The Virtues by Peter T.nGeach (Cambridge University Press, 1977).nabout known saints, and Mr. Boswellnhas slurred the character of some saints.nRegardless of how skeptically the subjectnmay be approached, it is difficult tonimagine that St. Anselm, St. Paulinusnof Nola, St. Aelred or Saints Felicity andnPerpetua believed that homosexual actsnwere anything other than sins, and,nwith the exception of St. Aelred, I donnot believe that Mr. Boswell’s evidencenproves that these people were “gay.”nSaint Aelred may differ from the othersnin that there may be evidence that hensinned homosexually in his youth, butnI would never draw that conclusionnsolely from Mr. Boswell’s presentation.nFor even in this case Boswell’s misunderstandingnof Catholic morality is clearnin, for example, his handling of a keynpassage from St. Aelred’s writings. Henseems not to realize that a reference ton”spiritual marriage” or “spiritual friendship”nin a Catholic context absolutely excludesnthe physical and instead impliesnconsecrated virginity. In general, Mr.nBoswell seems not to grasp the Christiannuse of familial and erotic metaphors. Henseems not to understand that a good,nmature Christian adult male could refernto himself as a spiritual child or as anmere boy in the spiritual life, or that hencould speak of someone as his spiritualnfather, and so forth. A fortiori Boswellndoes not understand how a pure soul ofneither sex could refer to his spiritualnunion with Our Lord as a marriage. Thisnignorance permits him to see St. Aelred’snappeal to the example of Our Lordnnnand His beloved disciple in an ambiguousnlight.nMr. Boswell’s insinuation that thesensaints were “gay” follows inevitably fromnhis use of that term which embodiesnthe confusion we mentioned before. Itnprevents him from seeing that he mustndistinguish between feelings and actions.nInstead, he says approvingly “mostnspeakers use ‘gay’ to describe personsnwho are conscious of erotic preferencenfor their own gender.” But Catholicnmorality has only secondary interest innpersons’ consciousness “of erotic preferencenfor their own gender.” Whatnthat morality is concerned with isnwhether persons commit the sin ofnsodomy or the like. The “consciousness”nMr. Boswell uses as the definiens fornthe misleading term “gay” is of concernnto Catholic morality only insofar as itnmay become a temptation, either to immoralnsexual acts or to a false humilitynexpressed in discouragement and neuroticnself-depreciation, even despair.nWhat is forbidden is sodomy (as is traditional,nI use the term to stand for allnperverted sexual acts). Even in laudatorynreviews such as those found in thenNew York Review of Books and Speculum,nthe reviewers each name some ofnthe saints I have mentioned and expressndoubt that Mr. Boswell has shown thatnthey engaged in sodomy or thought itnwas right to do so.nIn fact, if Mr. Boswell had any understandingnof the virtue of chastity, henwould see that in cultures where mennsimply assume respect for this virtuenthey are free to express love—betweennpersons of the same sex, love for God,neven God’s love for us—in erotic terms.nSince he knows nothing of this, hisnmisunderstandings become little shortnof astonishing. We shall look at the accountnof David and Jonathan in order tonmake this point even clearer. There is ansick pattern of thought found most frequentlynin practicing sodomites and, innour day, often among those who arenvictims of what Rieff called the triumphnof the therapeutic. People express thisnaffliction by finding some form of “sex-n• M ^ H M H ^ SnMarch/^prilldSSn