Well, I was certainly slapped on the face, by a handful of readers, for daring to publish my views on homosexuality. Those readers who wrote, bar one, were unforgiving. If readers could only be equally outraged by racial and economic injustices, and by domestic violence, we'd have them wiped out in a flash. I attempted to build a bridge, to open the way for healthy discussion, and my bridge got detonated.

It was careless on my part to include the cases of the priests in Tucson and the stories from Catholic World News in my piece. I got carried away. I should have left them and used them in a separate article. They seemed to be the main bone of contention with the handful of vociferous readers who wrote in, apart from the snide remarks about my grammar! The words in the CWN stories were "the homosexual dalliances of another prominent bishop with local teenagers." I never mentioned, nor did the article, paedophilia. So perhaps the teenagers were consenting ones and maybe the age of consent in Tucson is 16 or 18 years. Nevertheless, consenting or not should we condone the homosexual or indeed any other dalliances of a bishop? That was my point. I certainly did not mean to give the impression that homosexuals are also paedophiles. I am sorry if I did.

The matter of homosexual rights is an issue that Christians cannot avoid. It is a pity that this handful of readers chose to picture me as homophobic, intolerant and bigoted. I am not. I am happy to say that so far I don't seem to have lost any of my homosexual friends. I believe they know me well enough to realize that it was not my intention to hurt them and that I mean well.

Homosexual rights involve fundamental issues of justice and require forceful and definitive response. I think we have an active role to play in the battle against anti-gay discrimination, because of the moral, ethical, and even theological nature of the human rights struggle that is at stake. I would like to place myself firmly with those who are fighting against this discrimination. I am committed to justice of all kinds, including this one. But I was unprepared for the hostility shown to me and am deeply hurt by it.

But answers will only emerge as we are able to break through this bitter hostility. We have to genuinely open our hearts to engage in authentic, open-minded dialogue if we want to understand one another. There are of course differences and there must be no desire to minimize them. I will not reiterate my views which are consonant with the biblical perspective of marriage and family, for there are people who seem to be upset by these views.

The letters were very selective in what they attacked. No one, except Mrs Camilleri Pace, breathed a word about those men who leave wife and children to face the consequences, while they carry on with their new gay lifestyle.

Not one spoke about priests who practice homosexuality within the priesthood, instead of having the decency to leave, unless they are prepared to be celibate. Worse still, the church authorities seem to turn a blind eye to it all. I need hardly say that although here we are speaking of homosexuality I believe we should be equally censorious of those priests who stay on while having heterosexual affairs within the priesthood.

Of course I agree that homosexuals are entitled to their rights. It goes without saying. I will be in the forefront if they campaign for the adoption of a domestic partnership law giving same-sex couples the benefits, rights and responsibilities of marriage. These partnerships should have legal rights of shared health benefits where these are applicable, for example. And what about inheritance laws? How are homosexuals affected by them? Let's campaign for fair ones. I'm all for it.

I wish to eat as much humble pie as necessary to reassure those concerned that my intentions were honorable. This whole episode has taught me one thing. I will henceforth discuss my views on such subjects in some other arena but not in a magazine or a newspaper. It was foolish of me to plunge in where angels fear to tread. Never again.