Until my college years, I literally did not know anything about homosexuality, even its very existence. It simply did not occur to me that people of the same gender would gravitate toward one another sexually. That’s how sheltered my suburban upbringing was in a family where anything sexual received precious little mention.

After college when I joined the Jesuits, I did become aware of the attraction some men feel for one another. In fact, I felt it myself for at least one fellow novice, a fact that caused me much confusion. But, my spiritual counselors explained, that often happens in living situations restricted to a single gender such as in a military setting (as it was then) or, in  this instance, in a spiritual boot camp.

Later in my education for the priesthood, I was taught the then Catholic position about homosexuals. There is something fundamentally wrong with them, we learned. Their orientation goes against nature and thus violates God’s plan for human life.

However, with proper counseling, a person’s sexual orientation could be straightened out. Spirituality and religious devotion could cure him of his problem. Typically, female homosexuality did not enter our discussions at all.

On my reading list then was a book recommended for setting out a Catholic approach to the subject. It was called The Invert, a title that says if not all, a whole lot. Again the homosexual man was presented as somebody basically sick but who, with the proper approach, could be cured. Part of our ministry would be to help such a person to come around toward orthodoxy and faithful Catholic practice.

Of course, these attitudes, founded in religious doctrine and practice, accorded with the views of Americans at large. Writer and teacher Lisa Bennett, in a Harvard research paper, has documented the ways in which homosexuals were referred to in the pages of Time and Newsweek from 1947 to 1997. She presents long lists of abusive terms that regularly appeared in the pages of these prominent journals during this period.

I cite the above personal history, not to badmouth my own upbringing, but to reflect on how radically long life allows one to change. Inner changes can surprise us at least as much as the wrinkles worn on our face do.  The transformations in our worldview provide even more compelling reasons for life review than the external ones.

Nowadays I look upon being gay or lesbian as one of many differences among people at large. Though not myself sexually attracted to members of my gender, I can understand why some people are. It seems natural that not a few of my friends and colleagues follow a sexual style of life different from mine. To me, it’s a matter of basic tolerance to accept the way other people live their lives, so long as others are not hacking fellow citizens to death or otherwise sinning against the common good.

By contrast with my seminary days of long ago, I do not feel compelled to bring gay men (or lesbian women) around to my sexual orientation. In fact, I long ago gave up the attempt to make other people think and act like me. And I now strongly reject prejudice against people based on sexuality along with other human differences.

The question that fascinates me now is the change in my mentality. How has it happened that I have come so far from the outlook in which I was schooled? What were the chief influences that have brought me from that earlier point of view to my current one? And is there room for me to change further as I enter into older age?

If you live long enough, you find that almost everything changes. The world does not stand still; society refuses to stay where it was; individuals continually drop older ways in favor of new ones. All of this makes living to be old both so stimulating and so painful, often at the same time.

The reasons for fundamental change in my views of sexuality are, of course, many. Ironically enough, some influence comes from the Church. This institution is, of course, notorious for its continuing negative appraisal of homosexual activity. Nonetheless, there are many committed church members, and even some leaders, who take issue with official Catholic teaching about sexuality.

Another decisive influence is the impact of friends and colleagues who are gay or lesbian. I have come to admire many of them for their fine human qualities and draw inspiration from their religious faith and devotion. Over  time, it has become clear that some people not only do not find their sexuality a barrier to religion but actually feel it a force drawing them closer to God.

Who can predict one’s future thoughts? If the past can serve as standard, then clearly my views on this subject, as on others, will undergo even further transformation.

Richard Griffin