My first post on AOI was to take great exception to the promotion of a psychiatrist’s opinion of homosexuality relying solely on the authority of her occupation. As always, I proffered a careful, reasoned, and “evidenced-based” comment. First feedback: “Your attempt to discredit Dr. So-and-so fails.” WHAT? I don’t even know the woman! “She’s an Orthodox Christian, and by saying she lied..” Wait, I didn’t say she lied! “We know where this is leading, the normalization of homosexuality in the Church.” But I’m talking about the integrity of science! Sound familiar? Suddenly, every reply I’m reading assumes the droning voice of Arlen Specter “examining” Anita Hill, or any prosecutor, exculpatory DNA evidence in hand, who continues to insist, “This was a good case and I am not convinced of their innocence.”

I’ll put coin – that would be real money – that you have misinterpreted what went on here. My interpretation of the key elements:

Orthodox Christian: This can only be called as it comes over the plate because it is potentially “championable.” In your case, however, lacks “conservative” creds and uses the word “gay” in non-derogatory context. Strike one.

Antiochian Archdiocese: Touchy. Supporters note, “He’s in ‘good standing’ with his parish priest.” Cops don’t criticize cops… Ball one.

Vanderbilt University: “That’s where those liberal, lawless punks took over the facilities rather than support our president.” No, that was Columbia University., 1968. “Whatever.” Strike two.

Huffington Post: “Liberal rag” for sure (but I’d vote for Obama if get my own blog there). Ball two.

Homosexuality: Another “at the plate call.” “Rail to gratify their spleens” and you’re in. Otherwise ambiguous, “we know know where this is leading…” St-i-i-r-i-i-ke! “But ump, it was outside!” Dude, you were out before you were in.

You weren’t perceived as attacking, you were seen as defenseless.

I don’t have to tell you, Dr. Dunn, that some people have the uncanny ability to sense our vulnerability a mile away, frequently in 1,500 words or less. I have resigned more arguments on AOI than Boris Spassky to Bobby Fisher. Nevertheless, by the “eternity” of the internet, anyone who passes by will have my reasoning as “counter-point” and they decide as they will. Somehow I fantasize that AOI is a better place because of this. And so it goes…

I try not to click on links to the AOI blog (although I admit that I sometimes do so unwisely) and have so far managed to restrain myself from commenting there because what I see just arouses my own passions. I tend to just hope that people like this do not have a significant following because if they do it is really a nightmare situation. And given that people like Fr Jacobse are featured on things like Ancient Faith Radio perhaps they are seen as having credibility … in which case I am just grateful that I am very far away. Or maybe it’s just that I’ll never understand Americans.

I say this not because I necessarily oppose everything they say (although the Tea Party at prayer stuff I find pretty sickening) but because of the vitriol with which they say it. And, like you, I don’t want to become caught up into a spiral of negativity and hatred which seems to be the antithesis to Orthodoxy.

On the gay marriage issue (by which I mean the legalising of civil marriage rather than an ecclesial acceptance – lest anyone quote me saying things I’m not!) I’m somewhat ambivalent. Do you know John Milbank’s article on the subject? I think that he makes important points on the distinction between marriage and civil partnerships.

For what its worth, your views did not come across that way to the average listener. I’m still listening.