Daniel Muth's response [TLC, April 12] to my letter concerning the nature of the Anglican Communion's teaching office left me with the impression that he is unfamiliar with the historical development of Christian ethical attitudes about sexuality.

It is important to note that traditional moral theology has maintained that sexual expression has to be both unitive, i.e., it represents the expression of love between two persons, and generative, i.e., it always has to have the potential for biological procreation. The significance of biological procreation cannot be emphasized enough, since it is the major reason for the negative view of homosexuality in the Bible and in natural law theories derived from the Stoics. Further, it is the main reason for the Vatican's opposition to birth control and homosexuality.

A more constructive ethical view would hold that sexual expression has to be both unitive and generative, with generativity understood in terms of how sex can deepen the meaning of human relationships and personality. In this perspective, generativity is not limited to the biological procreation interpretation which is present in traditional moral teaching. It can include the procreation of children but goes beyond that.

Jeff Moore Escondido, Calif.