by surprisedbyjoy » July 20th, 2005, 5:47 pm
Contrary to popular opinion, Lewis did in fact comment on this issue. In a letter to Sheldon Vanauken, published in Vanauken's book A Severe Mercy (there's a discussion of it going on elswhere on the forum) he wrote:
"I have seen less than you but more than I wanted of this terrible problem. I will discuss your letter with those whom I think wise in Christ. This is only an interim report. First, to map out the boundaries within which all discussion must go on, I take it for certain that the physical satisfaction of homo¬sexual desires is sin. This leaves the homo, no worse off than any normal person who is, for whatever reason, prevented from marrying. Second, our speculations on the cause of the ab¬normality are not what matters and we must be content with ignorance. The disciples were not told why (in terms of efficient cause) the man was born blind (Jn. IX 1-3): only the final cause, that the works of God shd. be made manifest in him. This suggests that in homosexuality, as in every other tribula¬tion, those works can be made manifest: i.e. that every dis¬ability conceals a vocation, if only we can find it, wh. will 'turn the necessity to glorious gain.' Of course, the first step must be to accept any privations wh., if so disabled, we can't lawfully get. The homo, has to accept sexual abstinence just as the poor man has to forego otherwise lawful pleasures because he wd. be unjust to his wife and children if he took them. That is merely a negative condition. What shd. the positive life of the homo, be? I wish I had a letter wh. a pious male homo., now dead, once wrote to me—but of course it was the sort of letter one takes care to destroy. He believed that his necessity could be turned to spiritual gain: that there were certain kinds of sympathy and understanding, a certain social role which mere men and mere women cd. not give. But it is all horribly vague— too long ago. Perhaps any homo, who humbly accepts his cross and puts himself under Divine guidance will, however, be shown the way. I am sure that any attempt to evade it (e.g. by mock- or quasi-marriage with a member of one's own sex even if this does not lead to any carnal act) is the wrong way. Jealousy (this another homo, admitted to me) is far more rampant and deadly among them than among us. And I don't think little concessions like wearing the clothes of the other sex in private is the right line either. It is the duties, the burdens, the characteristic virtues of the other sex, I expect, which the patient must try to cultivate. I have mentioned humility becausemale homos. (I don't know about women) are rather apt, the moment they find you don't treat them with horror and contempt, to rush to the opposite pole and start implying that they are somehow superior to the normal type. I wish I could be more definite. All I have really said is that, like all other tribulations, it must be offered to God and His guidance how to use it must be sought.
I heard you had been troubled with the old spine again. I hope the silence on this topic in your letter does not merely result from selflessness but means that you are now well. Remember me to your very nice wife. You both keep your place in my daily prayers. It is a sweet duty, praying for our friends. I always feel as if I had had a brief meeting with you when I do so: perhaps it is a meeting, and the best kind. Pray for me to be made more charitable: we're in the middle of a Faculty crisis wh. tempts me to hatred many times a day.
P.S. I'd nearly forgotten your other point. I presume God grants prayers when granting wd. be good for the petitioner & others and denies them when it wd. not. Might there be cases where a. The worthiness of the petitioner made it bad for him to have
his prayers granted: i.e. might lead him to think there was
an element of bargain about it. b. The unworthiness made it bad: i.e. might lead him to think
that God did not demand righteousness. c. The worthiness made it good: i.e. might free him from
scruples, show him that his conduct had been right after all. d. The unworthiness made it good: i.e. produced humbled
compunction -wide hoc mihi?
All v. crude. The point is that worthiness might easily be taken into account tho' not in the way of direct earning and reward."
That's the full letter as published. Hope this clarifies some of the discussion as regards Lewis' opinions. Sorry it's a little rough; I scanned the test onto my computer, which does some weird things with em-dashes and punctuation. It seems to have done a pretty good job overall, though.