More Memories of 51 Years Ago, with Reconsiderations

Ian's comment on my post of a couple of days ago has got me reconsidering how I thought about Tom and about myself. What was the difference between Tom, so self-assured, and me, so worried?

I don't think it had to do with being sexually active. Could it be that he hadn't become aware of his orientation? I hadn't been aware of mine until the end of my junior year in high school, and it was only specific words from a classmate which caused the realization to dawn. If that hadn't happened, I could have entered college blissfully unaware that I was homosexual. So why not Tom? In that case it wouldn't have felt at all amiss for him to seek to be as close as possible to me (or any other object of his affection), whereas I was constantly afraid of falling into sexual sin; and, as I explain below, my fears were at least somewhat exaggerated and misplaced.

That line of thinking is reinforced by something he said when he introduced himself to me. He explained that he had a gift for recognizing holiness in others. He had seen it in a fellow student at St. Joseph's Prep in Philadelphia and had become good friends with him. Now he recognized it in me. And  it was in that context that he raised the question of daily Mass attendance. While it is possible that it was actually holiness that he recognized, I think it's more likely that it was his gaydar which he misunderstood, just as I mistook my high school crushes for simple friendship. I'm sure that he was absolutely sincere in thinking it was an attraction to holiness that he felt.

But if, despite all that, he was also aware of his orientation, then he has to have had a different take on the nature of sin. He had had the benefit of four years of Jesuit teaching in high school, where I had only had an hour a week of religious instruction. So he would probably have had a much fuller explanation of what constituted sin than I had. At that point in my life, I was very badly afflicted with scrupulosity (see also here and here). As a result, I was very much focused on avoiding sin. Perhaps even more important, I was unclear on distinguishing temptation from sin and I was unaware that sexual desire, as part of human nature, is morally neutral in itself, even though it gives rise to plenty of temptations. (This other post may also help explain my thinking at that stage.) As a result, I felt I should be suppressing all my sexual feelings as a way of avoiding temptation. Tom, on the other hand, may have already learned that it is both impossible and unnecessary to suppress sexual feelings. He may have known what I didn't learn until much later, that an intimate friendship which does not include actual sexual activity is not wrong. (Hence he saw nothing wrong in having his bed touching his roommate's.)

What if I were to meet a "Tom" today? Well, the thing is, I didn't find him especially attractive, although he was okay as a friend until he got too clinging and I got worried. But suppose there were some degree of mutuality in the attraction? If there were no more to it that, I think I'd be willing to enter into a close friendship, with the intention of keeping overt sexual activity out of it. Or suppose the feelings were of friendship without a real sexual component. Suppose I just liked the guy. Well, that's what I have with Zack, whom I hung out with several times when he lived in eastern Massachusetts and who has visited me several times since he moved away.