'Romano DID NOT bend my life'

During my absence, I got a couple of e-mails from the subject of a post last month. J. David Enright IV wrote to protest that the New York Post got wrong the details of his threatened lawsuit, with their Page One tabloid head (quoting from memory): "Suit: Priest made me gay."

His initial note to me said:

Tidy thinking and writing. The NY POST being the sensationalistic tabloid it is portrayed me as quite the jackass. NO, Father Romano's molestation did not make me gay and I was adamant about this with the reporter as I noted him attempting to steer me in that direction. Pls. refer to Wayne Besen's blog reportage ... he checked the facts, interviewed me and hopefully the false accusation will dry up.

Here's a link to the post Mr. Enright refers to by homosexual journalist Wayne Besen. The article also contains a link to the initial column Besen wrote, denouncing Mr. Enright.

I responded in part:

But I'd like to know what you're saying the Post got wrong. Are you saying the Post made up the quote from whole cloth? Or are you saying you said something they misconstrued (though it's hard to see what's ambiguous about "I believe that my life would be very different now ... I'd probably be married, living in Greenwich, with four children in boarding school.")
As I interpret the NYPost story, you've merely filed notice to sue, not the actual suit. May I take this note to mean that when the lawsuit proper is filed, it will not cite "making me gay" or anything similar as part of the damages you would be seeking to collect.

He responded, in part, as follows:

I never said that Joseph Romano "made me gay" which would be a ridiculous assertion. Yes, The Post made that up all by themselves. Father Romano introduced me to homosexuality by repeatedly molesting me as a seven- eight-year old child explaining that it was an accepted "rite of passage." He, given his stature, told me that to lie, to cover-up, tell no one, was also part of growing up. He forced a "dirty little secret" upon a child with his sexual molestations. He caused elaborate childhood depression robbing me of an otherwise happy childhood. At such a tender age, sexuality isn't even part of most children's thinking. Whether it had been hetero or homosexual pedophilia, I knew something wasn't quite right - the man damaged my natural happy and curious spirit. He stole a big chunk of my childhood away from me and that is what this suit (in part) is all about. He did BEND my life dramatically by his pathetic, sick deviate child molestation.
Whether I'd be living in Greenwich with a wife and children in school, otherwise, is anyone's guess. The Post swamped me
on this as well. The answer is, who knows what might have been? My issues with Father Romano and the Diocese of Albany (NY) are far larger than what has been suggested by The New York Post, a sensationalistic tabloid where I bet a young reporter could learn plenty - hands on - about yellow journalism.

AND

No, my actual suit will not have any mention of Romano "making me gay." Now that would be preposterous.
Yes, The Post did a hatchet job with my words and intent for the sake of their sensationalistic journalism and ambition to sell newspapers. Thank you for checking Mr. Besen.

As Mr. Besen wrote, the Post stands by its story, and it has not issued any corrections as best I can tell. As long as Mr. Enright's lawsuit will say what he says it will say (or not say, actually) and he says the molestation did not "make me gay," then I withdraw the comments I made about his lawsuit and case, plus the snarky asides.

I do not, however, withdraw the general point that the gay ideologues' insistence on homosexuality's supposed inborn-ness or God-given-ness in on a collision course with reality and even the pro-gay APA itself.