Homosexuals and celibacy

[BigE]

For the bigger picture, Catholics are now seen as a minority, or rather, Catholics faithful to the Church teaching on the matter. Yet, representatives of cultural Catholics, non-Catholic faiths and agnostics/atheists are on this forum trying to get everyone from the faithful to support gay causes. Why is that?
,

I’m not sure your statement here is even relevant to the debate at hand (does reparative therapy really work).

I’m a devout Catholic. I’m heterosexual (married with two wonderful kids). So a “gay agenda” means nothing to me other than where facts and medical science are leading.

And I suppose I could even argue I’m not supporting a gay agenda. I could just be arguing that I don’t believe homosexuality can be changed. That could be a argument for homosexuals needing to practice sexual abstinence which may be a safer and more realistic route than harming them through promised changes of sexual orientation that can’t happen and only frustrate. How would that be against Church teaching?

 

[Elizabeth502]

All good and well. And I certainly don’t dispute the fluidity of sexual orientation.

But let’s not ignore the stats - which as i said before indicate a VERY LOW success rate.

“From the available data, four studies reported a “success” rate during conversion therapy of 0.4%, 0.0%, 0.5% and 0.04%. That is, conversion therapy has a failure rate in excess of 99.5% during each study.”

Again, BigE, true scientists do not approach difficult problems in this way. It’s unprofessional to dismiss a problem because of the level of difficulty. If anything, the true scientist – someone who is really open and does not have an agenda – will redouble his efforts when faced with low success rates. He will not necessarily assume that a high success rate is, by contrast, possible, but it will be important to him to examine why the success rate of a particular treatment is low. He will examine all the elements of treatment, to determine if maybe the approach is what is causing high failure rate, rather than merely the attempt to address the condition in the first place. And he will do that (investigate all the variables of an approach) before making a tentative determination that it’s “a lost cause.” Generally, an unbiased scientific analysis will determine that a particular condition is largely untreatable with the contemporary methods that are being, have been, applied. Rarely will science say definitively, “such-and-such is untreatable because of a low success rate.” Rather, a neutral scientist will say, “Hmmm: I wonder what led to these cases being successful, as exceptions to the rule. Let’s examine what variables there were in (a) patient history, (b) patient receptivity, (c) skill and/or creativity of therapist, (d) other factors.” The scientist will not be focusing on the failures. He will be focusing on what made the successes succeed vs. what made the failures fail.

Depression used to be treated with electroshock in the mid-twentieth-century. That at-the-time conventional approach had a poor long-term success rate. No psychologist with any ethical code whatsoever would have concluded that “depression is untreatable.” Today, psychologists do not think that “depression is untreatable [because previous approaches had a low success rate].” Those are not the words of a scientist; those are the words of a politician.

Rather, psychologists have persisted in investigating more successful treatments for depression by examining what did not work and concentrating on what works at least better than previous methods.

 

[Mustang1971]

Vsedriver, Untruth you both make some good points. It does seem like a lot of people think that the Church is there just to ruin our fun. When in reality the Church is simply trying to guide us to the truth. The truth reveled by our Creator. Now God as our Creator might know a thing or two about what is good for us and what is not going to work out so well for us or society as a whole.

I think one problem with getting the message out there, is getting the complete and accurate message out. A person would have to understand the whole Catholic approach to sex and how everything works together. There are a lot of pieces that fit together. Think about how distorted this would get by trying to squeeze this into a 1 or 2 minute segment on the news.

Untruth I am sorry to hear that others have been mean to you. I would have thought the exact opposite, High School being rough and college much easier. I am a lot older than you and I never mentioned my SSA in High School. That would have been a nightmare. Even now I don’t go around telling everyone, I am sure some are very suspicious. Trust me it does get easier and it sounds like you are off to a great start. It sounds like you really desire Marriage. Ask God if it is his will to bring you a wonderful woman who shares your values. If this is where he is calling you then he will bring the two of you together when the time is right. Any person heterosexual or homosexual that is trying to be a faithful Catholic is really going against the norm, so in that regard we are all in the same boat.

 

[Mustang1971]

InSearchofGrace, Thank You!

 

[Elizabeth502]

I additionally want to say that the subtext of a lot of the objection to sexual-orientation therapy (whatever name one gives it) is the assumption that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with homosexual behavior, and with consigning those who have SSA to a life of celibacy. Call me an idealist. I don’t buy it. Not that I am saying (again) the opposite: that I have some unique predictive insight into treatment outcomes; I don’t pretend to. I am saying that, as Catholics, it is difficult to square one’s assent to Teachings with assumption that people with SSA are “just as happy,” fully healthy, and have a sexual procliviity that is just as valid (and life-affirming) as heterosexuals do. Because if you believe that there is no difference, naturally you would be unpersuaded by an urge to provide them with an alternative.

I cannot accept that homosexuality is as ultimately fullfiling as a heterosexual orientation and union is. Part of that is based on faith; much of that based on experience (testimonials of gays I know rather closely). It’s not that they can’t have any happiness, any acceptance in the straight world, let alone a successful career and some fine friends. But the lifestyle is limited in what it offers.

As Christians and Catholics we are called to ultimate liberation of self and soul, and to encourage that possibility in our brothers and sisters. Not sort-of liberation – granted only or mainly through political rights and secular societal approval. But genuine spiritual liberation which has wholeness as its end, not an imbalance and a mimicry of wholeness.

 

[BigE]

Again, BigE, true scientists do not approach difficult problems in this way. It’s unprofessional to dismiss a problem because of the level of difficulty. If anything, the true scientist – someone who is really open and does not have an agenda – will redouble his efforts when faced with low success rates. He will not necessarily assume that a high success rate is, by contrast, possible, but it will be important to him to examine why the success rate of a particular treatment is low. He will examine all the elements of treatment, to determine if maybe the approach is what is causing high failure rate, rather than merely the attempt to address the condition in the first place. And he will do that (investigate all the variables of an approach) before making a tentative determination that it’s “a lost cause.” Generally, an unbiased scientific analysis will determine that a particular condition is largely untreatable with the contemporary methods that are being, have been, applied. Rarely will science say definitively, “such-and-such is untreatable because of a low success rate.” Rather, a neutral scientist will say, “Hmmm: I wonder what led to these cases being successful, as exceptions to the rule. Let’s examine what variables there were in (a) patient history, (b) patient receptivity, (c) skill and/or creativity of therapist, (d) other factors.” The scientist will not be focusing on the failures. He will be focusing on what made the successes succeed vs. what made the failures fail.

Depression used to be treated with electroshock in the mid-twentieth-century. That at-the-time conventional approach had a poor long-term success rate. No psychologist with any ethical code whatsoever would have concluded that “depression is untreatable.” Today, psychologists do not think that “depression is untreatable [because previous approaches had a low success rate].” Those are not the words of a scientist; those are the words of a politician.

Rather, psychologists have persisted in investigating more successful treatments for depression by examining what did not work and concentrating on what works at least better than previous methods.

1. I don’t think I’ve ever said definately. And I certainly don’t have a problem with continued research. Just as the medical field continually looks for cures to incurable diseases.

But certainly doctors today, when talking to someone about a particuliar disease they may have - clues them in to their possible success rate given the techniques and knowledge of today - not what may be available tomorrow.

And all the data I have seen to date, says given today’s knowledge and techniques - the success rate of changing someone’s sexual orientation is less than 1%. Yet the pro-reparative crowd seems to promise a much higher rate of success (at least it seems to me).

1. In a pretend world of of no religious or cultural bias against homosexuality - would we even be trying to change sexual orientation?

 

[Elizabeth502]

1. In a pretend world of of no religious or cultural bias against homosexuality - would we even be trying to change sexual orientation?

You just made my point for me, BigE. :That, for you (apparently) there should be no reliigous (or cultural) bias against homosexuality. Then I would encourage you to try to understand better why the Church teaches what she teaches about sexuality, and why she has an incontravertible bias for heterosexuality. I don’t see how it’s possible to reconcile equal status (non-bias) for homosexuality with Church teaching. As practicing Catholics we cannot accept that homosexuality should be on an equal plane with heterosexuality. This is a fundamental aspect of Catholic moral theology.

What we can, and probably should, accept and embrace, i.m.o., is the point that a couple of posters recently addressed on this thread: that it is in fact charitable, nonjudgmental acceptance of homosexually-oriented Catholics as equal sons/daughters of God, and the unambiguous demonstration of that acceptance, that will do more to dissolve resistance and encourage openness on the part of those with this attachment, than will ambiguous or problematic treatment. I can fully believe and understand what was said about a semi-condemnatory attitude leading to defensiveness and simultaneous rejection of Church teaching on sexuality. There’s a lot of wisdom in that. (Because in fact, in the case of parenting, studies have shown that the most fully accepting parents – of unconventional or nonconforming behavior – are the parents least likely to end up with children who declare themselves “gay”)

 

[Mustang1971]

What we can, and probably should, accept and embrace, i.m.o., is the point that a couple of posters recently addressed on this thread: that it is in fact charitable, nonjudgmental acceptance of homosexually-oriented Catholics as equal sons/daughters of God, and the unambiguous demonstration of that acceptance, that will do more to dissolve resistance and encourage openness on the part of those with this attachment, than will ambiguous or problematic treatment. I can fully believe and understand what was said about a semi-condemnatory attitude leading to defensiveness and simultaneous rejection of Church teaching on sexuality.

Elizabeth502, you make a very good point here. If those of us with SSA were just accepted I think we would find more people who are SSA taking the time to learn what the Church has to say. I am not talking about accepting homosexual acts, but accepting the person.

For me it has been a very long journey. I was received into the Church at 28. I knew for a long time that Homosexual acts were incompatible with Christianity. It always made me feel like I was sort of an outsider even though I was raised Lutheran. When I first read the CCC it did sting. It is one thing to know something, but then to see it in black and white just really drives it home. So it took me a very long time to really understand and to grow. I think if more people did not rush to judgment on Homosexuals, even practicing ones, but took time to be a friend and teach them why the Church teaches what it teaches we would be able to lead more people to understanding. I am not saying that we should turn a blind eye or just go along with everything, but to show everyone love and understanding and help them to grow. Sometimes it takes time, maybe even years for a person to finally see the truth.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I am not saying that we should turn a blind eye or just go along with everything, but to show everyone love and understanding and help them to grow. Sometimes it takes time, maybe even years for a person to finally see the truth.

And sometimes it takes heterosexuals not focusing on ‘just’ non-normative sexual sins, but all sin, in order to develop that realistic compassion. I’ve said it often on CAF: I have my own disorders, my own struggles. And even when the Church tends to prioritize sins and levels of sin, we have to remember that God judges us individually according not only to our temptations and yeilding to those, but also our behavior relative to our gifts and our blessings. To those who have been given much, much will be expected.

What I’m trying to say is, the more self-evaluative we are, the more we become aware of our own attachments to our individual disorders, and that clear vision should disabuse us of any sense of superiority to others, whatever “their” sins are known to be or assumed to be.

 

[Mustang1971]

Good Points. I would say that also applies to me. I need to remember that the SSA is not the only part of me that is in need of fixing. I think sometimes all of us who are SSA might play a bit of the victim role. Yes SSA can be a very heavy cross to bear but as I grow I have learned to look at things differently. As I get older, I see how fast time really goes by and I understand more and more how temporary this life really is.

I have been trying to just accept SSA as my cross along with all the other little crosses that are presented to us on a daily basis. I am at this point by the grace of God and if it was not for that grace I would probably be on the other side demanding “rights”.

 

[BigE]

You just made my point for me, BigE. :

1. That, for you (apparently) there should be no reliigous (or cultural) bias against homosexuality.
2. Then I would encourage you to try to understand better why the Church teaches what she teaches about sexuality, and why she has an incontravertible bias for heterosexuality. I don’t see how it’s possible to reconcile equal status (non-bias) for homosexuality with Church teaching. As practicing Catholics we cannot accept that homosexuality should be on an equal plane with heterosexuality. This is a fundamental aspect of Catholic moral theology.
3. What we can, and probably should, accept and embrace, i.m.o., is the point that a couple of posters recently addressed on this thread: that it is in fact charitable, nonjudgmental acceptance of homosexually-oriented Catholics as equal sons/daughters of God, and the unambiguous demonstration of that acceptance, that will do more to dissolve resistance and encourage openness on the part of those with this attachment, than will ambiguous or problematic treatment. I can fully believe and understand what was said about a semi-condemnatory attitude leading to defensiveness and simultaneous rejection of Church teaching on sexuality. There’s a lot of wisdom in that. (Because in fact, in the case of parenting, studies have shown that the most fully accepting parents – of unconventional or nonconforming behavior – are the parents least likely to end up with children who declare themselves “gay”)

1. Yes in the usual connotation of bias.
2. I understand the bias for heterosexual marriages. Unitive, sacramental, and open to procreation. That is certainly the best. I totally agree with it. But why does that recognition have to mean that a committed monogamous homosexual relationship can only be categorized as sinful? Can the status of two things (relative to sexuality) be unequal without one of them having to be sinful?
3. Amen.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

1. All else being equal - I would assume an agnostic would actually be pretty nuetral in the presentation and interpretation of facts surrounding reparative therapy. Same goes for the majority of the 97% of of psychologists and psychiatrists in the APA and AMA. Why would agnostics, or medical professionals for that matter, have a bias towards or against reparative therapy? In this debate, who would you actually define as being “unbiased”?
2. And even if there was bias, how would that change the facts presented? It would be better for your argument to either show how the studies presented that show a success rate of less than 1% for reparative therapy are flawed…or…produce documented, peer reviewed studies that show reparative therapy has a significantly higher success rate. Pointing to bias seems to be a dodge of the facts.

1. And the matter about agnostics is what the Religious Tolerance site indicated as well. There are many if not most agnostics who are very learned, knowledgeable and intelligent. They sit on the fence on moral issues, however, and would even be for all intents and purposes, atheists (agnostics know the negative connotation of the ‘atheist’ label), unbelieving in God and the role faith plays in man’s life, believing ONLY in science and “empirical data.”

I think we already covered why I am not going with the flow on how and why the APA reached the one sided position they have taken in the approach to homosexual issues. They have rejected reparative therapy, which is clear, using as a basis scientific study that “suits” the position they have taken that homosexuality is not a disorder, and claiming the driver seat on which reports get in for peer review and publication. I realize you don’t buy this and you don’t believe that there is a gay agenda.

An outline of recent developments:

In 2007, the American Psychological Association convened a task force to evaluate its policies regarding reparative therapy; ex-gay organizations expressed concerns about the lack of representation of pro-reparative-therapy perspectives on the task force, while alleging that anti-reparative-therapy perspectives were amply represented.

In 2008, the organizers of an APA panel on the relationship between religion and homosexuality canceled the event after gay activists objected that "conversion therapists and their supporters on the religious right use these appearances as a public relations event to try and legitimize what they do.

In 2009, APA stated that it "encourages mental health professionals to avoid misrepresenting the efficacy of sexual orientation change efforts by promoting or promising change in sexual orientation when providing assistance to individuals distressed by their own or others’ sexual orientation and concludes that the benefits reported by participants in sexual orientation change efforts can be gained through approaches that do not attempt to change sexual orientation.

1. I can believe that reparative therapy has a high failure rate, although the study you refer to, tied to Dr. Drescher’s study, that only less than 1% can be helped by sexual re-orientation, is suspect, IMO. I also question if and why 97% of psychiatrists and psychologists are really aligned with the official professional organizations.

Is reparative therapy effective? The naysayers who are the “majority” answer with a loud “NO”. I’m not dodging here: It would be safe to say it needs re-tooling or refinement to be more effective and to determine coming in the door who can really be helped and not, those with deep-seated tendencies or those with ambiguity, who are motivated or guided by a belief system. This is akin to what Mr. Throckmorton has done, as raised in my post #150.

Let’s face it, therapy designed to help conflicted homosexuals since 1935 to the 21st century in a post-Stonewall period with “mainstream” medical profession disavowing reparative therapy, has gone through expansion and contraction.
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

InSearchofGrace;7558047:

…
For the bigger picture, Catholics are now seen as a minority, or rather, Catholics faithful to the Church teaching on the matter. Yet, representatives of cultural Catholics, non-Catholic faiths and agnostics/atheists are on this forum trying to get everyone from the faithful to support gay causes. Why is that?
,

I’m not sure your statement here is even relevant to the debate at hand (does reparative therapy really work).

I’m a devout Catholic. I’m heterosexual (married with two wonderful kids). So a “gay agenda” means nothing to me other than where facts and medical science are leading.

And I suppose I could even argue I’m not supporting a gay agenda. I could just be arguing that I don’t believe homosexuality can be changed. That could be a argument for homosexuals needing to practice sexual abstinence which may be a safer and more realistic route than harming them through promised changes of sexual orientation that can’t happen and only frustrate. How would that be against Church teaching?

Yes it’s relevant. I see that Elizabeth has addressed it in her post #164 and in her post #166, so I will not bother to re-state. Besides, I think she says it so much better.

I am glad to hear you are a devout Catholic. You and I have the same profile: heterosexual, married, two kids. However, I expressed the statement not really to direct it personally to you, as though I am singling you as a culture Catholic. My aim is for others following the thread to read said part of my post as well. As you might have noticed, there are several posters who self ID as Catholics, but are not really accepting of one or more of the non-negotiables as Catholics are reminded in this very forum, which includes the admonition not to be a part of the movement towards legalization of gay marriage, and by extension, issues like gay adoption. The direction is not just coming from CAF but from the bishops and the Vatican.

To an extent, you have admitted that you have points of agreement with an agnostic poster in this thread, who happens to participate regularly in homosexuality threads at CAF. He ardently and fiercely waives the gay causes banner in the sense that I brought up above.

Even the term “devout” Catholic is being sliced and diced by some others who take this as simply going regularly to Mass on Sundays, receiving Communion, at the same time setting aside the teaching against homosexual acts (identifying with Dignity, the HRC, etc.), or aligning themselves in matters affecting social and public policy that promotes / celebrates gay culture because they have a family member or close friend who is an active homosexual who is in a reportedly faithful same sex relationship.

Please do not take what I said above as saying you are such kind of Catholic. It is for the benefit of everyone in the cyber room who may be reading this thread.

Peace.
,

 

[Elizabeth502]

1. I understand the bias for heterosexual marriages. Unitive, sacramental, and open to procreation. That is certainly the best. I totally agree with it. But why does that recognition have to mean that a committed monogamous homosexual relationship can only be categorized as sinful? Can the status of two things (relative to sexuality) be unequal without one of them having to be sinful?

Not according to the magisterium. This is not a matter of simply “better,” BigE. You seem to be saying that you think Church teaching should be other than what it is. And if so, on what grounds? Because the theology is consistent and unambiguous.

This is not a minor or a tentative teaching, regarding the radical difference between one and the other. It’s not as if this is a discussion of a discipline, a private revelation, a minor aspect of spirituality, or the personal preference of one saint over another.

 

[chrysostim83]

I additionally want to say that the subtext of a lot of the objection to sexual-orientation therapy (whatever name one gives it) is the assumption that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with homosexual behavior, and with consigning those who have SSA to a life of celibacy.

I was about to say the same thing, but from another angle. To a lot of people, the teaching of the Church on chastity as it applies to gay men and lesbian women seems unfair. This causes them either to reject the teaching as false, or to maintain the teaching but try to mitigate its perceived harshness by believing that science currently has the means to “fix” homosexual men and women. Since neither solution seems acceptable to me, I would simply reject the dilemma by observing that life isn’t fair.

After that, just a couple minor points. (1) The APA taskforce, although it didn’t include anybody from NARTH, did actively solicit studies from therapists who believe that therapy can change sexual orientation. (2) About Throckmorton, I was under the impression that he’s given up trying to change sexual orientation: his efforts nowadays are directed at sexual orientation identity. For example, if a gay man walks into his office and says, “I don’t want to be gay anymore,” Throckmorton can help him to rework his identity so that instead of thinking of himself as a gay man, he thinks of himself as a (straight) man who has atypical sexual attractions. (3) Messing around with sexual orientation identity in this way is an approach that is fully endorsed by the APA.

 

[BigE]

Not according to the magisterium. This is not a matter of simply “better,” BigE. You seem to be saying that you think Church teaching should be other than what it is. And if so, on what grounds? Because the theology is consistent and unambiguous.

This is not a minor or a tentative teaching, regarding the radical difference between one and the other. It’s not as if this is a discussion of a discipline, a private revelation, a minor aspect of spirituality, or the personal preference of one saint over another.

I understand.

And I have certainly prayed and reflected a lot on my position. I do not hold it lightly.

It all boils down to the whole “conscience” thing for me.

 

[mariamarchita]

UGH

So-called “conversion therapy” is harmful and largely ineffective. Peruse these links. Do some research.

~Maria

 

[vsedriver]

1. In a pretend world of of no religious or cultural bias against homosexuality - would we even be trying to change sexual orientation?

In such a world many things that are negative would be look upon neutrally or positively.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Two links that may be of interest to followers of this thread:

Conversion Therapy Revisited: Parameters And Rationale For Ethical Care
by Clinical Psychologist Christopher Rosik Ph.D.

Anti-Gay?!
NARTH President Addresses Misperceptions about NARTH January 18, 2011

The purpose of this article is to address misperceptions and/or misinformation regarding NARTH. Although some critics will remain skeptical and perhaps some even antagonistic, others desire accurate information. This article is written for the latter group, those who might be interested to know the facts about NARTH’s mission and purpose.

In sections, the article explains that

• NARTH Is Not Anti-gay, nor is NARTH a Hate-Based Organization
• NARTH Recognizes Client Diversity
• NARTH Therapists Honor Client Self Determination: Clients Choose Their Own Goals while Therapists Avoid Imposing an Agenda
• Reorientation Therapy Includes Many Different Mainstream Approaches to Therapy
• While Success Rates are Similar to Some other Issues, Therapy for Unwanted Homosexuality Seems to be held to a Higher Standard
• Therapeutic Attempts to Change Sexual Orientation are not found to be Harmful
• NARTH is Neither Right-Winged, nor is NARTH a Religious Organization

,

 

[BigE]

NARTH President Addresses Misperceptions about NARTH January 18, 2011
The purpose of this article is to address misperceptions and/or misinformation regarding NARTH. Although some critics will remain skeptical and perhaps some even antagonistic, others desire accurate information. This article is written for the latter group, those who might be interested to know the facts about NARTH’s mission and purpose.
In sections, the article explains that

• NARTH Is Not Anti-gay, nor is NARTH a Hate-Based Organization
• NARTH Recognizes Client Diversity
• NARTH Therapists Honor Client Self Determination: Clients Choose Their Own Goals while Therapists Avoid Imposing an Agenda
• Reorientation Therapy Includes Many Different Mainstream Approaches to Therapy
• While Success Rates are Similar to Some other Issues, Therapy for Unwanted Homosexuality Seems to be held to a Higher Standard
• Therapeutic Attempts to Change Sexual Orientation are not found to be Harmful
• NARTH is Neither Right-Winged, nor is NARTH a Religious Organization

,

Interesting.

The author talks about 30-70% succes rates. This is based on a Yarhouse-Jones study done in 2009. “Success” was defined with the following caveat from Yarhouse and Jones:

“Second, while we found that part of our research population experienced success to the degree that it might be called (as we have here) “conversion,” our evidence does not indicate that these changes are categorical, resulting in uncomplicated, dichotomous and unequivocal reversal of sexual orientation from utterly homosexual to utterly heterosexual. Most of the individuals who reported that they were heterosexual at T6 did not report themselves to be without experience of homosexual arousal, and they did not report their heterosexual orientation to be unequivocal and uncomplicated.” (my underline and highlight)

ivpress.com/media/pdfs/ex-gay-apa.pdf

So the authors claim success in reparative therapy while admitting “most” of the individuals studied still get aroused by same sex attraction.

That’s a pretty broad definition of success IMHO.