In his disappointingly shallow response to my article [TLC, Feb. 15], Fr. Carroll [TLC, March 15] fails to grasp the thrust of the portion of my argument he cites. That our leaders' decisions reflect the culture of the editorial page of the New York Times rather than beauty parlor gossip is no great boon. Indeed, Fr. Carroll's whole approach of pointing to opinion polls to show how "prophetic" we are illustrates my point better than anything I could have said.

I appreciate Mr. Moore's pointing out the document, "The Meaning and Unity of the Anglican Communion," which, not surprisingly, refers to a magisterium comprised of scripture, tradition, reason, the creeds, the ministry of word and sacrament, the witness of the saints, and the consensus fidelium. One will, however, look through these in vain to find any support for the attempts to compose liturgies for blessing gay sex.

Let me reiterate: Ontologically speaking, I am not in any meaningful sense a heterosexual; I am a married man. The latter term tells me what sort of person I am to be. The former term tells me what sort of sins I am inclined to commit. The latter term has clear referents in scripture, tradition, etc. The former term is a johnny-come-lately ideological contrivance of 19th-century atheists. There is nothing scientific about it. Science is utterly incapable of telling people anything meaningful about who they are. I personally like the homosexuals I know. I strongly believe they are fundamentally wrong in believing that their sexual orientation defines who they are and the Episcopal Church does them no favors by lending credence to such false self-definition or pretending that there is an empirical basis for it.

Daniel Muth Point Frederick, Md.