In a new, timely intervention in ZENIT, the former president of NARTH indirectly clarifies the claims DREADNOUGHT has made about the links between NARTH / “reparative therapy” and Courage International. The former president confirms, indeed, that NARTH is a “non-religious” organisation. Curiously, however - and as DREADNOUGHTERS might have predicted - he then says:
“So when a 15-year-old boy goes to a priest and says, ‘Father I have these feelings, I have these temptations,’ that priest should say, 'you have a choice; if you don’t want to be gay there are things that you can do…Nicolosi said.”
As DREADNOUGHT has objected (and this interview demonstrates), NARTH’s impoverished, secular view of “sexual orientation”, and its “reparative therapies” are being recommended - via elements within the Courage leadership - for use by Catholic priests (perhaps even, given the context, recommended for use in the confessional).
Further, there appears to be no distinction in the NARTH president’s formulation between inclinations or “temptations” (which are “objectively” wrong) to homogenital acts (which are “intrinsically” wrong) and those “feelings” which might otherwise be experienced by same sex attracted individuals (same sex friendship, love, happiness in male company). There is also the sense, against the Catholic teaching on human sexuality and probably borrowed from the language of homoactivism, that one’s “feelings” or “temptations” are constitutive - that one might “be gay”, rather than merely same sex attracted at any given time. What is unique to NARTH is the sense that simply being “gay” (or, translated into Catholic language, simply experiencing same sex attractions) is pathological - and, perhaps by extension, sinful per se. This is what happens when the moral distinctions are forgotten. They are absolutely central to the Catholic teaching on human sexuality. They are very important to same sex attracted Catholics. When missing them, or obscuring them, NARTH approaches must stray from orthodoxy.
Even if the boy in the example experienced “temptations” to homogenital acts, then, he need not complain of “being gay” or “feeling gay”, rather he need only confess to sinning (on the properly Catholic view), like anyone else, and only if he has willfully sinned - by entertaining sinful thoughts, for instance, or by willfully participating in homogential acts. Only these acts are homosexual / (or more precisely) homogenital. He is, himself, simply male, Catholic, a penitent, etc. Indeed, the Catechism dictates, he must be “accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity”.
Where he merely experiences same sex attraction, a need to be close to another male, or to share a loving friendship, it would certainly seem that the Catechism exhortation to charity, alongside the teaching that every “sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided” would make it imprudent (at the very least) for priests to recommend that he seek out “reparative therapy”. Certainly, where a priest urges only same sex attracted individuals to seek out “reparative therapy”, this might constitute that “unjust discrimination” which is prohibited in Catholic teaching.
DREADNOUGHT must ask again, then, what an obviously and avowedly “non-religious” (non-Catholic, for-profit)^ organisation is doing telling priests what to say to same sex attracted young men? Why should a good, holy priest credit the former NARTH president’s secular claims and recommend, without caveat, the anecdotally disturbing cluster of phenomena, the professionally doubted method called “reparative therapy”? Is it prudent for confessors to act as secular mental health counsellors, or to take their cues from the same? Why is Courage, an organisation attempting to establish itself as an apostolate, as an official organ of the Catholic Church, so closely linked with the founders and leaders of NARTH? On the DREADNOUGHTERS Facebook Group we have asked: “Does Courage Have A NARTH Problem?” The answer is becoming clearer, and it appears to be yes.