 of love, by amplifying the apparent significance of concupiscent desires. It fosters a despairing self-pity, harming hope, which is meant to motivate moral virtues. And it encourages a strong sense of entitlement, which often undermines the obedience of faith by demanding the overthrow of doctrines that seem to repress “who I really am.”

There are a handful of laudable counterexamples to this discouraging pattern, self-identified “gay Christians” who are both virtuous and faithful to the teachings of the Church. But given the inherent tension between the classical Christian narrative and the modern sexual-orientation account, it should come as no surprise that the praiseworthy outliers who try to combine these two inconsonant traditions are the exception rather than the rule.

Baptizing the homosexual identity is fraught with preventable perils. And yet, when it comes to the gravest evil effected by the sexual-orientation binary, homosexuality is not the culprit. Heterosexuality is—not, of course, as though we can have one without the other. The most pernicious aspect of the orientation-identity system is that it tends to exempt heterosexuals from moral evaluation. If homosexuality binds us to sin, heterosexuality blinds us to sin.

There is no question that some morally self-aware “heterosexuals” exist. Nevertheless, as a general rule, identifying as a heterosexual person today amounts to declaring oneself a member of the “normal group,” against which all deviant sexual desires and attractions and temptations are to be measured. Such hetero-identification thus ushers in a pathetically uncritical and—hopefully it goes without saying—unmerited self-assurance, not to mention an inaccurate measure for evaluating temptation.

Of course, we do have a model norm for the evaluation of sexual deviancy. But that model is not heterosexuality. It is Christ Jesus himself, the God-man who both perfected human nature and perfectly exemplified its perfection, “one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.” For the self-declared heterosexual to displace our Lord in this position is the height of folly.

It is true that homosexuality may be distinguished by an inappropriate despair, accepting sinful inclinations as identity-constituting and thereby implicitly rejecting the freedom bought for us by the blood of Christ. But heterosexuality, in its pretensions to act as the norm for assessing our sexual customs,
of love, by amplifying the apparent significance of concupiscent desires. It foster a despairing self - commiseration, harming hope, which is meant to motivate moral merit. And it encourages a strong common sense of entitlement, which often undermines the obedience of faith by demand the overthrow of doctrines that appear to repress “ who I really am. ” 

 There be a handful of laudable counterexamples to this discouraging pattern, self - identified “ gay Christians ” who are both virtuous and faithful to the teaching of the Church. But given the inherent tension between the authoritative Christian narrative and the modern sexual - predilection account, it should arrive as no surprise that the praiseworthy outliers who try to combine these two inconsonant traditions are the exception preferably than the rule. 

 Baptizing the homosexual identity is fraught with preventable perils. And yet, when it comes to the gravest evil effected by the sexual - orientation binary, homosexuality is not the culprit. Heterosexuality is — not, of course, as though we can have one without the other. The most pernicious aspect of the predilection - identity system is that it tends to excuse heterosexual from moral evaluation. If homosexuality binds us to sin, heterosexuality blinds us to sin. 

 There constitute no question that some morally self - aware “ heterosexuals ” exist. Nevertheless, as a cosmopolitan rule, identifying as a heterosexual person today amounts to declaring oneself a member of the “ normal group, ” against which all deviant sexual desires and attractions and temptations are to be measured. Such hetero - identification therefore ushers in a pathetically uncritical and — hopefully it go without say — unmerited self - assurance, not to mention an inaccurate measure for evaluating enticement. 

 Of course, we do have a model norm for the evaluation of sexual deviancy. But that model is not heterosexuality. It is Christ Jesus himself, the God - man who both perfected human nature and perfectly exemplify its perfection, “ one who in every obedience has been tempted as we are, so far without sin. ” For the self - declare heterosexual to displace our Lord in this side is the height of stupidity. 

 It is true that homosexuality may be distinguished by an inappropriate despair, accepting extraordinary inclinations as identity - constituting and thereby implicitly reject the freedom bribe for us by the blood of Christ. But heterosexuality, in its pretensions to act as the norm for assessing our intimate customs,
 of love, by amplifying the xpparent signifnxance mf condupisceng desires. It fosters a despamrint seld-pity, harming hope, whizh is meajt to morivaue moral virtues. Ehd it ekeourafcs a vvrong sense of gntitlement, fhich often ungefmnnes the obedience of faith by demanqing thr lverthrow of djctrpnqs tgat seem to repress “who I really aj.”

There ere a handful og laudable counterexamples to hhis discouraging oattern, seld-idegrified “gay Cfristians” who are both virtuous and faithful to the tdachiugs of the Xhyrcj. But given vhe inrerent tension betwean the vlassical Chrixtien nqrrative and the modecn sexual-orientation account, ht should come as ni wurprhse dhat rhe przixesorthy ouvliers who fry to combune these two inconxogqnt traditiona are ehq exception rather than the rule.

Baptizitg fhe homosexual identity is fraught with prevgntable pewils. And yet, when it comes to the gravest evil efxectev cy uhc rwxkal-orientation binary, homosexuality is not thq cilirit. Heterosexuallty is—not, of coursr, ws jhough we can fave ous sithout the other. Hhe mosj pernucious askect pf the orientation-identity wystem is thct ut tends to exempt heterosexucls frpm motal evaluation. If homoszxualify binds us to sin, hsgerosexuality blkndx gs to sin.

There is no questyon that wome morallh sekf-awarq “heteroseduals” exist. Nevertheless, as a ganeral rulf, identifying as a heterosexual person today smmunns to decjarinn oneself a memfer of the “norkal grobp,” agaknst which all detiant sexual desires and djtractions anv temptatyons are to be odasured. Such hrtero-idenniyication rhus ushers in a pethejidally uncriticao abd—hopefully it boer wytjont sarhng—unmerited selw-asrirancd, not to mektiun am inaccurate measure for evaluating temptayijn.

Of coutse, we do have a model norm for the evalkatioi of sxxual cevyancy. But that model is not heferosexuapitn. It is Chrise Jewus himself, che God-man who both perfected human natuce and perfectly exemplufied its perfectiou, “pne who in xvery wespect hds been tempted as ww are, yet without sin.” For the self-declzred haterodexual to displace our Lord in this position is the height of folly.

It is rrue tiae homosexuamity may te bistingtishxd by an inapproprpate despair, accepting sinful inrlinations af identity-constituting and tnefeby implicituy rejecting the freedom bought gor us by the blood of Christ. Bit heterosexuality, in itx pretenwions to acn ar the norm for assrssing our wexual xustlms,
of love, by amplifying the apparent significance desires. fosters a self-pity, harming hope, moral And it encourages strong sense of which often undermines the obedience of by demanding the overthrow of doctrines that seem to repress “who I really There are a handful of laudable counterexamples to this discouraging pattern, self-identified “gay who both and to the teachings of the Church. But given the inherent tension between the classical Christian narrative the modern sexual-orientation account, it should come as surprise that the praiseworthy who try to combine these inconsonant are the rather the Baptizing the homosexual is fraught with preventable perils. And yet, when it comes to the gravest evil effected by the binary, homosexuality the culprit. is—not, course, though we can without the other. The most pernicious orientation-identity system is that it tends to exempt from moral If homosexuality binds us to sin, blinds us to sin. There is no question some morally self-aware “heterosexuals” exist. Nevertheless, as a general rule, identifying as a heterosexual person to declaring oneself a of the “normal against all sexual and attractions temptations are to be measured. Such hetero-identification thus ushers in a uncritical and—hopefully it goes without saying—unmerited self-assurance, not to mention measure evaluating temptation. Of we do have a norm the evaluation of sexual that is is Jesus the God-man who both human nature and perfectly exemplified perfection, “one who in as we are, yet without sin.” For the heterosexual to displace our Lord in this is the height of folly. It is true that homosexuality may be by an accepting sinful inclinations as identity-constituting and thereby implicitly the freedom bought for by the blood of Christ. But heterosexuality, in its to as the for assessing our customs,
 of love, by amplifying the appaRent signifIcancE of ConCuPiscEnt dEsires. It fosterS A desPairing self-pity, harming Hope, wHiCH is mEAnT to moTivate mORaL VIrtUeS. ANd iT eNCoUrageS a sTrong seNse of entitLemEnT, which often uNDeRmines the oBedIence of faith By dEmandiNg The OVerthRow Of docTrines THat seeM to represS “wHO I realLY am.”

TherE ARe A hanDful of laudable couNTeRExamples to this DiscouRaGInG PAttErn, Self-identiFiEd “gay cHristiaNS” wHO ARe bOTh virtuous and Faithful to tHE teAchingS oF thE church. but giVeN The Inherent tenSion Between thE classICal ChriSTian narRative And The ModeRN sExUal-OrIEntATiOn aCCouNt, it shouLd CoMe as nO surPRISE thaT thE praIsewoRthy outliers wHo tRy to COmbIne thEse twO incOnSonanT tradiTions ArE the exception raTher Than the ruLe.

BApTizInG the hOMosexuAl iDenTity is fRaught wITh pReVENTaBle perils. And yet, wheN iT COmEs to the gRavest EViL eFFected by ThE seXual-ORIentaTion BInAry, homosExualiTY iS nOt the cuLpRit. HetErOseXuaLity iS—Not, oF coursE, as thougH we caN Have one without THe other. The mosT PeRNIcIOus aSpeCt of the orieNtatIOn-idEntiTY sYstEM is thAt it tEnDS tO Exempt heterosexuals FrOm moraL evalUation. If homosExuality biNDS Us to sin, hEterOSeXUality blinds us To sin.

there is no qUEstion thAt somE morally Self-aware “HETerosexuAls” ExiSt. NEveRTHeLess, as a generaL RUle, iDeNtifyinG as A heteroSexUal PerSon ToDay amountS to declaRiNg OnEsElf A membER of the “noRmAl gRoUp,” aGainsT Which aLl devIant SeXuAL deSires anD AtTRActiOnS aNd teMptAtIons aRe to BE meAsured. SUch hetero-IdeNTifiCaTiOn thus uShers in a patheTiCally uncriTiCal And—hopEFUlly it goEs without saying—unmeriteD Self-assUraNce, noT to mEntion an iNacCurate MeaSUre for EvaluaTing tEmPtaTIOn.

Of cOURsE, we Do Have a model NORm fOr the EvAluaTion of sExual deviancy. But thAT moDel is not heterOseXualITY. IT is cHrISt JEsUS hiMSElf, the God-man who Both perfecTeD HuMan nature aND peRfEctly exEmplifiEd its PErfectiOn, “one who iN every resPeCt haS BEen Tempted as wE are, yet wIthout sin.” fOr the SElF-declAreD heterOsExuAl to dIsplacE Our lord iN this pOsItion iS the hEiGht of folLy.

It is true that homosexuaLity maY be diStiNguished bY an INapPropriate DespAir, acceptiNg sInfUl incLinATions As idENtIty-COnstiTutiNG and thereBY iMplICItLy rejecting THE FreEdom bOugHT for us By thE blood of Christ. But HEterosexuality, In itS PRetEnsIOns tO aCt as the norm for AssEsSINg our sexUaL customs,
 of love, by amplifying th e apparent  sign ifi can ce  ofconc upiscent desir e s. I t fosters a despairing  self -p i ty,h ar minghope, w h ic h isme an t t om ot ivate  mo ral vir tues. Anditen courages a s t ro ng sense o f e ntitlement,whi ch oft en  un d ermin esthe o bedien c e of f aith by d em a ndingt he over t h ro w of  doctrines that s e em to repress “wh o I re al l ya m .”
Th ere are aha ndful of laud a bl e c oun t erexamples to  this disco u rag ing pa tt ern ,  self- ident if i ed“gay Christ ians ” who are  bothv irtuous and fai thfultothe  tea c hi ng s o ft heC hu rch .  Bu t giventh einher entt e n s ionbet ween  theclassical Chr ist iann arr ative  andthemo dernsexual -orie nt ation account,it s hould com e a snosu rpris e  thatthe  pr aisewor thy out l ier sw h o  t ry to combine thes et w oinconson ant tr a di ti o ns are t he  ex cept i o n rat hert ha n the ru le.

B a pt iz ing the  h omosex ua l i den tityi s fr aughtwith pre venta b le perils. And yet, when itc om e s  t o  the  gr avest evileffe c tedby t h esex u al-or ienta ti o nb inary, homosexualit yis not  theculprit. Hete rosexualit y i s—not, o f co u rs e , as though we  canhave one w i thout th e oth er. Themost pern i c ious asp ect  of  th e o r i en tation-identi t y  sys te m is th atit tend s t o e xem pthe terosexua ls frommo ra lev alu ation .  If homo se xua li tybinds us tosin,hete ro se x ual ity bli n ds u s to  s in .

T her eis no  que s tio n thatsome mora lly self -a wa re “het erosexuals” e xi st. Nevert he les s, asa generalrule, identifying as ah eterose xua l per sontoday amo unt s to d ecl a ring o neself  a me mb ero f  the“ n or mal  g roup,” aga i n stwhich  a ll d eviantsexual desires and att ractions andtem ptat i o ns  ar e  t o  be  m e asu r e d. Such hetero- identifica ti o nthus usher s  in  a  pathet icallyuncri t ical an d—hopeful ly it goe swith o u t s aying—unme rited se lf-assura n ce, n o tto me nti on anin acc urate  measu r e f or ev aluati ng  tempt ation .
Of cour se, we do have a modelnorm f or th e e valuation  of sex ual devia ncy.  But thatmod elis no t h e teros exua l it y.I t isChri s t Jesus h i ms elf , th e God-man w h o bot h per fec t ed hum an n ature and perfect l y exemplifieditsp e rfe cti o n, “ on e who in every  re sp e c t has be en  tempted as  we are,  y e t wit hout s in.” F or thes e lf - declar ed h ete rosexualtodi s place o ur  L o rd inthis  p ositio n is t h e he i g ht of folly.

It  is t r u e tha t  ho mosex ua lity ma y  bedistinguis hed by an i nappro pria te de spair,ac ceptin g s in ful inclin a tions asident ity-con st itut ing  and t here b y  impl icit ly  re jecting t h e  f r ee do m  bo ught  forus  bythe blood of Chris t.B ut hete ro sex u a lity,i ni t s pretensi ons  to a c t  as the no r m fo r  a s sessi ng our  sexua l custo m s,
 of_love, by_amplifying the apparent significance_of concupiscent_desires._It fosters_a_despairing self-pity, harming_hope, which is_meant to motivate moral_virtues. And it_encourages_a strong sense of entitlement, which often undermines the obedience of faith by demanding_the_overthrow of_doctrines_that_seem to repress “who I_really am.”

There are a handful_of laudable_counterexamples to this discouraging pattern, self-identified “gay Christians”_who_are both virtuous_and faithful to the teachings of the Church. But_given the inherent tension between the_classical Christian narrative_and_the_modern sexual-orientation account, it_should come as no surprise that_the praiseworthy outliers who try to_combine these two inconsonant traditions are the_exception rather than the rule.

Baptizing the_homosexual identity is fraught with_preventable perils._And yet, when it comes_to the gravest_evil effected_by the sexual-orientation_binary, homosexuality is not the culprit._Heterosexuality is—not, of_course, as though we can have_one_without the other._The_most_pernicious aspect_of the orientation-identity_system_is that_it_tends to exempt heterosexuals from moral_evaluation._If homosexuality binds us to sin, heterosexuality_blinds us to sin.

There_is_no question that some_morally self-aware “heterosexuals” exist. Nevertheless,_as a general rule, identifying as_a heterosexual_person today_amounts to declaring oneself a member of the “normal group,” against_which all deviant sexual desires and_attractions and temptations are_to be_measured._Such hetero-identification thus_ushers_in a_pathetically uncritical and—hopefully it goes without saying—unmerited_self-assurance, not_to mention an inaccurate measure for_evaluating temptation.

Of course, we_do_have a model norm for the_evaluation of sexual deviancy. But that_model is not heterosexuality. It_is_Christ_Jesus himself, the God-man who_both perfected human nature and perfectly_exemplified its perfection,_“one who in every respect has been_tempted_as we are, yet without sin.”_For_the self-declared heterosexual to displace our_Lord_in_this position is the height_of folly.

It is true that homosexuality_may be distinguished by an inappropriate despair, accepting sinful_inclinations as identity-constituting_and thereby implicitly rejecting the_freedom_bought_for us by the blood of Christ. But heterosexuality, in_its pretensions_to act as_the norm for assessing our sexual customs,