Lost the cultural debate on homosexuality

[MichaelTDoyle]

I just do not see Other Eric writing a “screed”. I also do not see anything but charity in his attempt to offer a path away from grave temptation. He is also citing the Bible and the catechism for his arguments and I don’t recall him characterizing his debate opponents as belligerent or abusing their arguments as a bore or attacking their status as a Catholic.

He only attacks the sin itself.

You may prudentially disagree with him, but I do not see a lack of charity in his posts. I really do not. It is the opposite of charity to uphold sin as not sin.

It may be that he’s prudentially wrong but the counter arguments are quickly dismissed when laced with vitriol.

Why can we not have a moral discussion without the heat and more light? Sexual ethics are a grave matter that keep many away from the sacraments, whether it is SSA or abortion or artificial contraception or masturbation and on and on. Sexual vice seems innumerable.

We need concrete arguments. Let’s stop with trying to make people feel good while they drown in sin. Let’s give them a life rope. This forum is the place to find the life rope, not minister. This is a Catholic forum, after all. I want strong arguments with citations from strong sources like the Bible, the Catechism, and the Doctors of the Church.

We may have lost the battle in the media, but real people can still be witnessed too, but to do that we need coherent moral structure that we live through action and can in need defend in argument.

NOW GET TO WORK!!!

 

[blessedtoo]

I just do not see Other Eric writing a “screed”. I also do not see anything but charity in his attempt to offer a path away from grave temptation. He is also citing the Bible and the catechism for his arguments and I don’t recall him characterizing his debate opponents as belligerent or abusing their arguments as a bore or attacking their status as a Catholic.

Michael, I don’t wish this to deteriorate into a personal lament about any particular poster, but I wonder if you have read this entire thread? I wonder if you have visited other threads on this topic to see the “screed” to which I am referring? I wonder if you have reflected on the exchanges that have occurred between certain posters who are striving for Christian perfection and those who condemn their “approach”. I respectfully suggest you research CAF for some examples of “belligerence” and misrepresentation of Church teaching.

He only attacks the sin itself.

One could argue that mischaracterization of the Church’s teaching and relentless insistence that earnest folks go above and beyond what even She demands is un-Christian, at best, sinful at worst.

It is the opposite of charity to uphold sin as not sin.

Again, I suggest you read or re-read this entire thread. Not one Catholic on this thread has attempted to “uphold son as not sin” and it is distressing to those of us who doggedly research and present faithful Church teaching to be accused of such a thing.

Why can we not have a moral discussion without the heat and more light?

We can and we do. But 244 posts later, we are still refuting one person’s opinion and interpretation. I suggest you look back to the 3rd and 4th page of this thread at some of the posts made by SSA individuals who were either extremely confused by these personal opinions, or extremely offended. The truth does not require embroidering. It does not need additional personal interpretation. Folks with SSA who frequent these threads often find themselves up against this same “brick wall” of “either/or”, which is not Church teaching. Do we want to present our faith correctly or confuse the issue so much that people who may have been helped simply despair?

We need concrete arguments. Let’s stop with trying to make people feel good while they drown in sin. Let’s give them a life rope. This forum is the place to find the life rope, not minister. This is a Catholic forum, after all. I want strong arguments with citations from strong sources like the Bible, the Catechism, and the Doctors of the Church.

Again, no one, most especially me, is trying to make people “feel good” about sin. This is a gross mischaracterization of the debate. There are more citations given here from the Catechism than a person could read in their entire lives. Why is that somehow falling short? We are bound, as Catholics, to live according to the teaching presented in the Catechism. We are not bound by the “Doctors of the Church” or scholars, or theologians, or, God forbid, therapists. We are not expected to be more Catholic that the Pope. And even if you were to review all these extra-Catechetical sources, you would not find written in them that an SSA person is incapable of forming loving bonds with other people or incapable of being chaste without undergoing repartive therapy. That is the crux of this argument and one that must be debunked. This insistence on pursuing such therapy, regardless of the necessity, is extremely discouraging to people who are already pursuing a life of virtue by utilizing the methods offered by the Church (prayer, spiritual guidance, devotions, penance, etc).

 

[blessedtoo]

Michael,
Let me also be clear on this: I fully support repartive therapy for those who want and think they need it. I am myself a member of a Catholic organization for folks with SSA that advocates such therapies for those who desire them. I am also a Catholic who is “walking the walk” without the benefit of professional “expertise” and I am surrounded by others just like myself.

 

[Jaypeeto3]

I agree with blessedtoo.

One of my close relatives was a lesbian, and God instantly cured her and reordered her orientation. She is no longer SSA. That was God’s will for her. God does not will the same thing for all people with SSA. It is some people’s Cross To Bear, and all the reparative therapy in the world won’t change the SSA in those many, many cases.

God bless,
Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto3)

 

[kmabba]

Amen blessedtoo!

 

[urban-hermit]

On the contrary, Dr. Joseph Nicolosi does positively link motivation, an aspect of the will, with success in therapy. (1) The hypothetical example of the highly motivated individual who still fails in therapy is more a product of the scare tactics currently in vogue with homosexual apologists than it is a sober assessment of reality.

(1) Nicolosi, Joseph. Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality: A New Clinical Approach. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1997 p. 243.

Eric, listen to your own audio link. Dr Nicolosi’s own words. I listened to it. And I took notes. Start around the 26-minute mark.

Really there’s no shame in admitting you are wrong about something. All of us have had to do it. It’s how you learn.

 

[Abira]

I honestly do not know how you can make such a statement and call it Church teaching. Nowhere in the catechism does it say such a thing about SSA individuals being incapable of love.

The Church does not give a separate directive on chastity for homosexuals. It does not require that they undergo any treatment unless they are compelled to do so. And it never, ever suggests that because of their SSA, they are incapable of forming bonds of love.

I agree,

the idea that honosexuals are incapable of love is rediculous. How can you say that having never known any homosexuals?

I would like to know your sources. I don’t think you should be apeaking of homosexuals as if they are a case study. I can tell you from personal experience that they are capable of forming bonds of love. I expect there are sources to support any agenda here but I think that you seem so hatefilled that you have a responsibility to meet with SSA before taking such an unfounded stance with no personal experience of your own!

Why else would they be persuing marriage? Why else would many live as a couple? They have clearly formed bonds of love, not just with others with SSA but with their families and friends.

I think this statement is bordering on hateful to suggest that those with SSA…are not like the rest of us…they are incapable of love!!!

I think that you have a moral responsibility to try to speak to someone with SSA as a person, an equal, before contining on with this arguament.

 

[goofyjim]

I again repeat that since the Church teaches that the sexuality “concerns affectivity, the capacity to love” (1) and even “the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others,” (2) an individual with a disordered sexuality, such as one subject to same-sex attractions, is not capable of turning to acts of love, since he or she is psychologically incapable of it.

Moreover, I still do not see that you have much of a point with your brief citation of the Catholic Encyclopedia. The refusal to work towards the repair of a disordered sexuality is, itself, an unseemly indulgence of that sinful appetite. The proper moderation of this appetite implies the elimination of the errant impulse. Indeed, according to the same Catholic Encyclopedia:

One who refuses the healing that reparative therapy provides is abdicating the control of his sexuality that chastity requires.

(1) Catechism of the Catholic Church. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1993. ¶ 2332. Available online at: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P84.HTM

(2) Ibid.

(3) Melody, John W. “Chastity.” The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume III. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. Available online at:

I am quite capable of Christian love and do not need your judgement.

 

[Other_Eric]

Eric, listen to your own audio link. Dr Nicolosi’s own words. I listened to it. And I took notes. Start around the 26-minute mark.

Really there’s no shame in admitting you are wrong about something. All of us have had to do it. It’s how you learn.

I will have no problem admitting I’m wrong if I can be shown exactly where I am wrong. I listened at the 26-minute mark to attempt to discover what it is that you might be talking about. Other that Nicolosi’s qualification of “cure,” I still fail to see what point it is that you are trying to make. I repeat my citation from my last post to you to point out that Nicolosi correlates motivation with success in therapy. Nothing in the broadcast contradicts this. If you know better, given that you have taken notes, it ought to be easy for you to come up with a specific quote to back up your argument.

 

[Other_Eric]

While the Catechism does indeed state the above, it does not draw this conclusion:

It seems to me that we can go ‘round this point for weeks and still not convince the other of anything. It’s all quite simple to me. Same-sex sexual attractions constitute “a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil.” (1) Since this appetite is one of the sexuality, the sexuality itself is disordered, as it is oriented towards the same intrinsic moral evil. Since ”progress of the human person and the advance of society itself hinge on one another,” (2) and since “sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul [and] it especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others,” (3) the individual with same-sex attractions has an obligation not only to God but to the rest of the Christian communion to ensure that his sexuality and, by extension, his aptitude for relating to the rest of society is properly ordered.

You have made much of the notion that the Church nowhere specifically mandates therapeutic intervention for those with same-sex attractions. In this, you are flatly contradicted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

In a particular way, we would ask the Bishops to support, with the means at their disposal, the development of appropriate forms of pastoral care for homosexual persons. These would include the assistance of the psychological, sociological and medical sciences, in full accord with the teaching of the Church. (4)

Since the Church herself recognizes that appropriate pastoral care for those with same-sex attraction will include psychological, sociological and medical assistance, it is hardly beyond Church teaching to point out that healing of some sort is very strongly recommended by the Church.

That persons with same-sex attractions attraction are psychologically incapable of love has already been addressed by the Church. She has stated that “such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women.” (5) Such people, by virtue of the impulse, regardless of whether it is acted upon or not lack “affective maturity” and are psychologically incapable of ministering to their flock. (6)

The priest is above all a servant of others, and he must continually work at being a sign pointing to Christ, a docile instrument in the Lord’s hands. This is seen particularly in his humility in leading the liturgical assembly, in obedience to the rite, uniting himself to it in mind and heart, and avoiding anything that might give the impression of an inordinate emphasis on his own personality. (7)

The Church recognizes that the ability to be a servant of others, to be humble and to withdraw oneself from the spotlight are things that it is practically impossible for those with same-sex attractions to accomplish. Since we are all called to serve, this makes the healing of same-sex sexual attractions all the more urgent.

(continued below . . .)

 

[Other_Eric]

( . . . continued from above)

Since you have quoted the same paragraphs from the Catechism innumerable times in this thread alone and since we continue to sharply disagree about what it is that the Church requires for those with same-sex attractions who seek to live in chastity, I submit that for one of us, the Catechism is anything but clear. I agree with the Catechism that homosexuals are called to chastity and that through self-mastery they can approach Christian perfection. (8) Since Christian perfection will not include same-sex attractions and since chastity requires their absence, nothing in the paragraph you have quoted (again) contradicts my argument in the least. If anything, it affirms it.

Perhaps it would help if, instead of simply posting large sections from the Catechism imagining your meaning to be self-evident, that you take the time to explain what you believe a certain paragraph to mean and why you believe it contradicts what I have argued.

(1) Ratzinger, Joseph. Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons. Rome: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, October 1, 1986. §3. Available online at: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

(2) Paul VI. Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World: Gaudium et Spes. Vatican City, December 7, 1965. §25. Available online at: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html

(3) Catechism of the Catholic Church. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1993. ¶ 2332. Available online at: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P84.HTM

(4) Ratzinger. §17.

(5) Grocholewski, Zenon. Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with Regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders. Rome: Congregation for Catholic Education, November 4, 2005. §2, #5. Available online at: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

(6) Ibid., §1.

(7) Benedict XVI. Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation: Sacramentum Caritatis. Rome: February 22, 2007. §23, #2. Available online at: vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis_en.html#The_Eucharist_and_the_Sacraments

(8) Catechism of the Catholic Church. ¶ 2359. Available online at: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM

 

[blessedtoo]

You have made much of the notion that the Church nowhere specifically mandates therapeutic intervention for those with same-sex attractions. In this, you are flatly contradicted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Quote:
In a particular way, we would ask the Bishops to support, with the means at their disposal, the development of appropriate forms of pastoral care for homosexual persons. These would include the assistance of the psychological, sociological and medical sciences, in full accord with the teaching of the Church. (4)

Wow! Where to start! The quote above is the one you selected from a beautiful and brilliant document form Cardinal Ratzinger. I encourage everyone on this thread to read the entire speech, as it not only affirms everything we have been trying to express to OtherEric, but even goes beyond. What you have done, once again, is selected one paragraph from about 20 that will back up what you are trying to advance and have left out the stunningly significant remainder. Here are some examples:

The Church is thus in a position to learn from scientific discovery but also to transcend the horizons of science and to be confident that her more global vision does greater justice to the rich reality of the human person in his spiritual and physical dimensions, created by God and heir, by grace, to eternal life.

Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.

What, then, are homosexual persons to do who seek to follow the Lord? Fundamentally, they are called to enact the will of God in their life by joining whatever sufferings and difficulties they experience in virtue of their condition to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross. That Cross, for the believer, is a fruitful sacrifice since from that death come life and redemption. While any call to carry the cross or to understand a Christian’s suffering in this way will predictably be met with bitter ridicule by some, it should be remembered that this is the way to eternal life for all who follow Christ.
It is, in effect, none other than the teaching of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians when he says that the Spirit produces in the lives of the faithful “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, trustfulness, gentleness and self-control” (5:22) and further (v. 24), “You cannot belong to Christ unless you crucify all self-indulgent passions and desires.”

It is easily misunderstood, however, if it is merely seen as a pointless effort at self-denial. The Cross is a denial of self, but in service to the will of God himself who makes life come from death and empowers those who trust in him to practise virtue in place of vice.

Just as the Cross was central to the expression of God’s redemptive love for us in Jesus, so the conformity of the self-denial of homosexual men and women with the sacrifice of the Lord will constitute for them a source of self-giving which will save them from a way of life which constantly threatens to destroy them.

Christians who are homosexual are called, as all of us are, to a chaste life. As they dedicate their lives to understanding the nature of God’s personal call to them, they will be able to celebrate the Sacrament of Penance more faithfully and receive the Lord’s grace so freely offered there in order to convert their lives more fully to his Way.

An authentic pastoral programme will assist homosexual persons at all levels of the spiritual life: through the sacraments, and in particular through the frequent and sincere use of the sacrament of Reconciliation, through prayer, witness, counsel and individual care. In such a way, the entire Christian community can come to recognize its own call to assist its brothers and sisters, without deluding them or isolating them.

continued,

 

[blessedtoo]

What do we agree on?(At least I think we do !)

Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

The inclination, while seen as an objective disorder, is not a sin. A Christian may find themselves burdened by any number of “disorders” and yet if they, through God’s grace, do not practice behaviors indicative of the disorder, they have no fear of damnation.

It is easily misunderstood, however, if it is merely seen as a pointless effort at self-denial.

Agreed? However, as Cardinal Ratzinger clearly states, when this self denial is “in service to the will of God” it empowers those who trust in Him.

and in particular through the frequent and sincere use of the sacrament of Reconciliation, through prayer, witness, counsel and individual care.
These would include the assistance of the psychological, sociological and medical sciences, in full accord with the teaching of the Church.

Cardinal Ratzinger suggests here that some of the pastoral approaches may INCLUDE “counsel” and other forms of assistance. He does not mandate this instruction. Bishops are “enouraged” to present such “options” in the larger context of their own pastoral guidance.

Here are some other approaches the Bishops are encouraged to present:

They are encouraged to call on the assistance of all Catholic theologians who, by teaching what the Church teaches, and by deepening their reflections on the true meaning of human sexuality and Christian marriage with the virtues it engenders, will make an important contribution in this particular area of pastoral care.

The Bishops are asked to exercise special care in the selection of pastoral ministers so that by their own high degree of spiritual and personal maturity and by their fidelity to the Magisterium, they may be of real service to homosexual persons, promoting their health and well-being in the fullest sense.

Within the broad scope of the healing ministry of the Church, “counsel” is but one option. And counsel can refer to any type of assistance: one-on-one therapy, retreats, group, etc. NOWHERE is reparative therapy ever mentioned. By Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope B16.

And finally:

From this multi-faceted approach there are numerous advantages to be gained, not the least of which is the realization that a homosexual person, as every human being, deeply needs to be nourished at many different levels simultaneously.

I didn’t find the part about homosexuals being incapable of love in this document. Is it in the other one you cited?

 

[blessedtoo]

That persons with same-sex attractions attraction are psychologically incapable of love has already been addressed by the Church. She has stated that “such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women.” (5) Such people, by virtue of the impulse, regardless of whether it is acted upon or not lack “affective maturity” and are psychologically incapable of ministering to their flock. (6)

Quote:
The priest is above all a servant of others, and he must continually work at being a sign pointing to Christ, a docile instrument in the Lord’s hands. This is seen particularly in his humility in leading the liturgical assembly, in obedience to the rite, uniting himself to it in mind and heart, and avoiding anything that might give the impression of an inordinate emphasis on his own personality. (7)

The Church recognizes that the ability to be a servant of others, to be humble and to withdraw oneself from the spotlight are things that it is practically impossible for those with same-sex attractions to accomplish. Since we are all called to serve, this makes the healing of same-sex sexual attractions all the more urgent.

You took this quote from a document titled Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations. This is irrelevent to our debate. If you are attempting to make the argument that an individual with SSA is unsuited for priesthood, then this is a great source, although even in this document it states:

Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem - for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate

Using this document as a way to prove that lay people with SSA are psychologically incapable of love is completely ineffective. Men called to Priesthood have a unique requirement they must fulfill:

The candidate to the ordained ministry, therefore, must reach affective maturity. Such maturity will allow him to relate correctly to both men and women, developing in him a true sense of spiritual fatherhood towards the Church community that will be entrusted to him[7].
By means of the Sacrament of Orders, the Holy Spirit configures the candidate to Jesus Christ in a new and specific way: the priest, in fact, sacramentally represents Christ, the head, shepherd and spouse of the Church

This is not the case for the lay Catholic who is called only to chastity and conformance with Church teaching in all other matters of faith and morals.

Again, didn’t see the part about homosexuals being incapable of love.

 

[Digger71]

I again repeat that since the Church teaches that the sexuality “concerns affectivity, the capacity to love” (1) and even “the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others,” (2) an individual with a disordered sexuality, such as one subject to same-sex attractions, is not capable of turning to acts of love, since he or she is psychologically incapable of it.QUOTE]

Of course, accidently, you may have revealed why the cultural debate on homosexuality has been lost.

It blindingly obvious that devoted loving gay couples exist, as is the outreach work gays do, that gays are active members of their familes, that they do form communities, and (of course) do turn to acts of love.

Faced with the reality of homosexuals compared to the dogma of the Churches, people take the reality over the theory, and the Church becomes discredited.

“Gays are incapable of acts of love”…I am going to put that one next to “fights in gays bars are between two men fighting over a third” in my diary

 

[blessedtoo]

Digger71;2003688It blindingly obvious that devoted loving gay couples exist, as is the outreach work gays do, that gays are active members of their familes, that they do form communities, and (of course) do turn to acts of love.

Faced with the reality of homosexuals compared to the dogma of the Churches, people take the reality over the theory, and the Church becomes discredited.

“Gays are incapable of acts of love”…I am going to put that one next to “fights in gays bars are between two men fighting over a third” in my diary

I want to be very clear about my position here so that it is not miscontrued. In this debate, we are discussing how SSA individuals who are **living a chaste life **are certainly capable of forming loving, chaste bonds with family and friends. I am not advancing the idea that practicing homosexuals in “relationships” or communities that advocate for the “gay agenda” are expressing that same Christian interpretation of love.
Gotta keep my eye on you, Digger.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

I gotta admire that argumentation, Blessedtoo. I’ see the point you focused on that I missed. I would not want to say that anyone could not love.

Is OtherEric putting that forth or that people in sin haved their ability to love hindered?

I would have to jummp ship on this statement by Other Eric:

an individual with a disordered sexuality, such as one subject to same-sex attractions, is not capable of turning to acts of love, since he or she is psychologically incapable of it."

Hindered is not the same as incapable. All sin hinders our ability to love. Incapable would mean despair since they could not even respond to the promptings of grace.

The larger point seems to be the importance of going outside oneself, outside one’s pride and seeking help.

Thank you for pointing out that significant theological error, Blessedtoo. While we live we have hope and to hope in the Lord is to love. It’s wrong to assent to any theory that denies a human the capacity to love utterly.

 

[Digger71]

I want to be very clear about my position here so that it is not miscontrued. In this debate, we are discussing how SSA individuals who are **living a chaste life **are certainly capable of forming loving, chaste bonds with family and friends. I am not advancing the idea that practicing homosexuals in “relationships” or communities that advocate for the “gay agenda” are expressing that same Christian interpretation of love.
Gotta keep my eye on you, Digger.

I was responding to Other Eric I thought.

However, your response is just a continuing demonstration of my point. The two main caveats you introduce, ‘love’ is only possible for the gay man (even in relationship to friends and family) if they live a ‘chaste’ life, and a practising homosexual can do not demonstrate ‘love’ in the Christian sense (and I remind you that many groups claim to be christian, including pro-gay groups and Fred Phelps).

Anyone who has seen a loving gay couple, or a doting uncle/devoted lesbian aunt would not take you seriously, and probably dismiss further arguments from you as somewhat 'flat-earthish.

And this in turn seems to be a reasonable explanation for the lost cultural debate. The facts on the ground contradict the supposed psycho-emotional-social condition of the sodomite.

I use sodomite deliberately. I recently read Sodomyy and the Pirate Tradition and the Myth of the Modern Homosexual, and looked up the sis of sodom as decribed in scripture…The anal-sex was the culmination of having a sodimitical character, the result of the mind set, not the definition of the sodomite. In this argument of gay people not being able to love, there is an echo of that hypothesis.

 

[urban-hermit]

I will have no problem admitting I’m wrong if I can be shown exactly where I am wrong. I listened at the 26-minute mark to attempt to discover what it is that you might be talking about. Other that Nicolosi’s qualification of “cure,” I still fail to see what point it is that you are trying to make. I repeat my citation from my last post to you to point out that Nicolosi correlates motivation with success in therapy. Nothing in the broadcast contradicts this. If you know better, given that you have taken notes, it ought to be easy for you to come up with a specific quote to back up your argument.

The point I was trying to argue in post # 229 and post # 221 is that motivation does not guarantee success in ridding oneself of homosexual impulses. It is a no-brainer that motivation correlates to success in therapy. But those are 2 different statements.

You seemed uncomfortable with and attempted to qualify and downplay the fact I pointed out to you: that only about 30% of those who undergo reparative therapy succeed, by Dr Nicolosi’s own clear admission. Is that 30% the only 30% who is motivated? Maybe that is indeed the case. But from what I know, we cannot at this time state that with confidence.

As you must have heard since you listened to this audio link starting at about the 26-minute mark, Dr Nicolosi clearly states that amongst his patients,
one-third experience no change ,
one-third experience significant improvement ,
and one-third experience a “cure” (and as you mentioned, Dr Nicolosi qualified “cure” as a state where heterosexual attractions are present, but homosexual thoughts or feelings might occasionally still occur, but at a much diminished intensity.)

Does high motivation increase the chances of success in therapy? Of course. Upon that point we are in agreement. However, nowhere does Dr Nicolosi say that motivation guarantees success, which is the assumption you seem to be operating under.

And so the problem I called to your attention I still have no answer for: what do we tell those who try and fail with reparative therapy?

I am not trying to discredit reparative therapy. I already stated in a previous post that I know it does sometimes work. But if you personally are going to push people into it, at least present them with the best information available.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

The point I was trying to argue in post # 229 and post # 221 is that motivation does not guarantee success in ridding oneself of homosexual impulses. It is a no-brainer that motivation correlates to success in therapy. But those are 2 different statements.

You seemed uncomfortable with and attempted to qualify and downplay the fact I pointed out to you: that only about 30% of those who undergo reparative therapy succeed, by Dr Nicolosi’s own clear admission. Is that 30% the only 30% who is motivated? Maybe that is indeed the case…
Does high motivation increase the chances of success in therapy? Of course. Upon that point we are in agreement. However, nowhere does Dr Nicolosi say that motivation guarantees success, which is the assumption you seem to be operating under…

I would like to disagree with the notion that motivation is any issue here at all. The main motivation is the reduction is society abuse!!! Probably 30% do not care thus it is easier for them to avoid.