Peters related an incident in his own life concerning “consuming rage”. A neighborhood bully drove him over the edge. The child Peters struck back. This act was unacceptable to the moms in the neighborhood and he was forced to apologize, even though the bully had the injury coming to him.
What was the child Peters defending himself against? His anxiety was the fear of the loss that this bully could impose. Peters was protecting his xiety, the life that he could have had (if the bully never existed).
Peters told another story about a California boy who became an active homosexual then got outed by his own brother (and his brother’s friend). He ended up confronting his brother’s friend, begging to get his old life back (perhaps, the life that he could have had but was compromised by his own sexual activity; or perhaps, the life that he pretended to have as if he were not sexually active). His brother’s friend rebuffed him. So he shot his brother’s friend with an Uzi.
After these and other stories, Peters served the blandishments of tired inevitability, concluding that anxiety and rage, along with the violence they generate, are part of the human condition. He threw in the word “Original Sin” in order to spice up the dish. If only we had faith (in Christ), then we might have the common sense not to give in to “consuming rage”.
With faith (in Christ), we could accept the unacceptable: the xiety of living in the shadow of a bully and the xiety of the label of “faggot” and the look of humiliation in the eyes of one’s father and mother.