www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality: A New Clinical Approach (Paperback)

Dear Eric,

Thanks very much for the links and references. I want to take a look at them.


People have to remember not to confuse Pederasty (which includes man-boy love) with Homosexuality.
We have a much better understanding of human sexuality today than any time in the past, it's biological, genetic profile, including gender identity and sexual orientation. What is clearly seen is that gender identity occurs on a continuum as well as sexual orientation. ON one end of the spectrum we have XY males and as you move to the other side you come across women who are actually XY's but they are "androgen insensitive" males,as well as hermaphrodites ending up with XX females at the other end.
As to gender identity again, there is no clear black and white but grey areas that include the transgendered individuals: it seems clear that something happens in the brain during development when gender identity is formed, and for some biochemical reason, some individuals have an identity that is different from their morphological (physical) state.
I think the evidence is very closely to demonstrating a biological basis to homosexuality as well. I suspect it also has to do with the developing brain in the embryo and the effects of biochemicals. Because its not a "lifestyle choice" but a biological imperative, I think that's why as Father Anthony noted -- no long term studies support the success of the therapy touted in this thread.

I hope as we continue to learn about human biology that the Catholic church won't commit another "gallileo error". But I fear that given the Church's response to the pederasty scandal in its very halls, it is a long way from enlightenment.

But I can't comment on the theological aspects of the debate until I look at the references you gave and read the quoted text again.

It seems to me that one response and the most Christ-like one, is not to make homosexuality a civil crime.

Nonna,

Thank you for bringing the scientific perspective into the thread.. Truly, there has been so much development in our knowledge of sexuality and biology that things which seemed black and white in the past are now much more "grey areas" as we gain more knowledge. It is heartening to me that many of the upcoming generation do not have the prejudices of other generations when it comes to how they treat lesbian and gay people. That gives us some hope!

Peace,
Brian

Nonna,

I think just the opposite is true. Science has tried repeatedly to isolate the so-called "gay" gene or to come up with a biological explanation and has failed time and again. I can't say for certain that one won't be found but the evidence points the other way.

Paul

It is quite possible that someday science will demonstrate a biological tendency towards any number of behaviors, be they heterosexual or homosexual, alcoholism, or whatever (although current efforts do not support any genetic link). As I have noted in previous discussions, it seems to me that for some individuals the cause of Same Sex Attraction Disorder might be nature and for others it might be nurture. If SSAD is genetic then therapy will not help those born with it change, but it could help them in their attempt to live the Christian life (which calls for chastity for the unmarried).

We must be careful to remember that even if SSAD is someday shown to be genetic, this will not mean that that the moral teachings the Lord has given us in this area can be rewritten to bless homosexual sexual activity. Consider that the discovery of a genetic tendency towards alcoholism would not mean that we bless alcoholics to partake of alcohol and become drunk. Drunkenness will still remain a moral wrong. Such information might be useful in helping people avoid behavior that tends towards alcoholism. (A tendency towards alcoholism is not the only example that can be offered here). Tendencies towards a particular sin (whether genetic or not) are not sinful in themselves. Acting on these tendencies and committing a moral wrong is sinful. Each of us has our own tendencies towards sin that we struggle against each day.

Those afflicted with SSAD do not choose their condition. Most of us could probably never imagine the struggle they endure. I greatly admire those with SSAD who struggle against it and do not condemn them when they occasionally stumble. But there is a difference between falling and getting back up to try again and an abandonment of the Lord�s commandments to embrace that which God teaches us is immoral.

As Father Anthony noted, the Great Physician can help us endure and overcome all temptations.

No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it. (1 Corinthians 10:13)

I agree with Nik and the Admin. I feel sorry for men and women with the homosexual tendency because they have a heavy cross to bare but its objectively disordered as natural law and scripture testify to. There is no firm biological evidence for it and in mapping the human genome scientists found none either. Moreover, even if it were biological that wouldn't neccessarily make it acceptable.

As I've just stated its demonstratably contra to natural law and Scripture. Giving it a biological root doesn't mean its acceptable. So long as man has not only will but also reason he has is able to make choices. Does the impulse to cheat on his wife give a man warrant to cheat on his wife? Just because his biology makes him find women besides his wife physically appealing?

PaulNik:

you may find this of interest:
"Sexual orientation is a component of human sexual differentiation. Research over the last 15 years has sketched in the major aspects of sexual differentiation in mammals.

Ellis and Ames (1987) have written a very fine tutorial describing the ontogeny of mammalian sexual orientation (300 references):

* Mammalian sexual development usually expresses chromosomal pairing: females have an "XX" pairing of the sex chromosome; males have an "XY" pairing. The chromosomal pairing can be called the karyotypic sex of a person. [The picture of an organism's paired chromosomes arranged from largest to smallest is known as a karyotype.]
* The prototype mammal is female. Male characteristics reflect specific biochemical interventions in the development of the individual. If some or all of the active interventions are blocked, the male characteristics will not occur.
* There are four aspects of sexual differentiation and organization: genital (reproductive organs), neurological (differences in brain structure and functioning), secondary sexual characteristics (breast development, facial hair, etc.), and behavioral (sexual orientation and sex-typical behaviors).
* Each of these aspects may be "inverted" (the individual has the characteristics of the other sex) with respect to the individual's karyotypic sex ("XX" or "XY" chromosome pairing).
* Sexual orientation is revealed by a consistent preference for sexual relations with same-sexed or other-sexed partners. If there is a degree of ambivalence about the partner's sex, the person is bisexual. Sexual orientation is not altered by occasional sexual experiences with noncongruently sexed partners by choice or in the absence of alternative sexual outlets.
* Sexual differentiation relevant to sexual orientation occurs in hypothalamic areas of the brain (in 1987 the preoptic anterior nucleus, ventromedial nucleus, and anterior nucleus were known).
* Brain sexual differentiation develops as "female" unless there are high levels of testosterone (an androgen) in which case "male" brain differentiation occurs. In human beings, hypothalamic differentiation begins about the middle of the second month of gestation and is completed by the middle of the fifth.
* Primate neurological sexual differentiation can be affected by four different interventions: (a) direct manipulation of androgen levels during gestation; (b) pharmacological blocking or augmentation of the effects of androgens; (c) exposure of the pregnant female to stress (which can depress androgen levels); (d) immune-system responses to androgens.
* Inversion of sexual behavior (males presenting to other males) has been produced in rodents and possibly monkeys by rearing in unisex peer groups. Rodent sexual differentiation is not complete at birth; the rearing conditions may have lowered testosterone levels and thus altered the rodent sexual differentiation. The rodent literature is thus not directly generalizable to primate ontogeny. In monkeys, unisexual rearing seems to create a general unease with other-sexed peers and awkwardness in responding to sexual overtures from the other sex. Continued exposure to peers of both sexes "heterosexualizes" the monkeys' behavior.
* Sexual orientation is a continuum from exclusive heterosexuality, through various degrees of bisexuality, to exclusive homosexuality. Sexual orientation is definitely not a binomial or trinomial categorical variable.
* Sexual orientation is permanent and cannot be changed. Therapies that purport to change sexual orientation are, in all likelihood, reporting changes in sexual behavior of bisexual persons--not of the sexual orientation of homosexual persons.
* "To summarize the human evidence ... sexual orientation is mainly the result of neurological factors that are largely determined prenatally, even though they do not fully manifest themselves until adolescence or adulthood." (Ellis & Ames, 1978, p. 248).
* The sexual-differentiation model Ellis & Ames propose suggests that a significant proportion of male homosexual-orientation is a result of maternal stress during the first and second trimesters of pregnancy.

APA (1992). Award for distinguished contribution to psychology in the public interest: Evelyn Hooker. American Psychologist, 47, 501-503.

Burr, C. (1993). Homosexuality and biology. The Atlantic Monthly, 271(3), 47-65.

Byne, W. (1994). The biological evidence challenged. Scientific American, 270, 50-55.

Ellis, L., & Ames, M. A. (1987). Neurohormonal functioning and sexual orientation: A theory of homosexuality-heterosexuality. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 233-258.

Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., & Lamon, S. J. (1990). Gender differences in mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 139-155.

Hyde, J. S. & Linn, M. C. (1988). Gender differences in verbal ability: A meta-analysis Psychological Bulletin, 104, 53-69.

LeVay, S. & Hamer, D. H. (1994). Evidence for a biological influence in male homosexuality. Scientific American, 270, 43-49.

McCormick, C. M. & Witelson, S. F. (1991). A cognitive profile of homosexual men compared to heterosexual men and women. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 16, 459-473.

Money, J. (1988). Gay, Straight, and In-Between: The Sexology of Erotic Orientation. New York: Oxford University Press."

http://www.lemoyne.edu/OTRP/otrpresources/otrp_glb.html

It's disingenuous to use a term like SSAD. YOu could not find it in the DSM manual used by Psychologists and psychiatrists.

Human sexual orientation is a continuum from pure heterosexual to pure homosexual. One cannot maintain the fiction that one part of the continuum is a "disorder."

Now alcoholism, I never heard that that was a "sin." Perhaps gluttony is a sin. What alcoholism is most certainly an addiction that causes great injury to the individual and to the public.

Dear Administrator,

I think one has to understand the context of the theological arguments to understand what exactly is the prohibitions with regards to human sexuality in the Bible. And I think the clergy need to have an open and honest discussion of these matters with the advantages given us from scientific knowledge.

The church has shown its ability to adapt and change over time as our scientific knowledge has expanded -- Galilleo is one of the best examples of the dangers of clinging to dogma. And it did take a long time before the church was able to apologize. But It's heartening to know that there is a science group associated with the Vatican. The church has managed to steer clear of a galilleo error over evolution. Where it will end up with respect to human sexuality remains to be seen.

with love
Nonna

The real problem on this thread is obstinacy of the will. If people choose to reject what God has taught with astounding clarity since the time of creation, then they simply will not be convinced otherwise. As Our Lord Jesus Himself said, "there are none so blind as those who will not see."

Bob, your premises are so flawed that there is almost no basis for a discussion with you. You argue that there is no such thing as objective justice? No such thing as objective right and wrong? You can't say what's a sin and what's not?

If you really hold those premises, then it is pointless to argue with you at all. Of course, you don't really think that there is no objective right or wrong, because you think that "hate speech" is objectively wrong, and a sin, and you think that people who commit it should be locked up. But anyway, I digress . . .

In point of fact, it is the "studies" looking for a biological basis for homosexuality that have been motivated by politics, not the ancient teaching that homosexual behavior is wrong. These "studies" have spent countless dollars looking for something that they have never been able to find, and will never find, because it simply doesn't exist. But even if there were a biological basis for the orientation, that would never justify the behavior--any more than a genetic predeliction to violence or alcoholism would justify the behaviors associated with those "orientations."

LatinTrad

I think that we all differ on what "the real problem on this thread" is or if there is a "real problem" at all.

If you think that my "premises are so flawed that there is almost no basis for a discussion" then I'm easily dismissed and we don't have to discuss.

You're right: I don't believe that there is "such (a) thing as objective justice" outside of God's justice. We may have glimmers of what this is--and we have political program given to us by God which prioritizes feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, standing in solidarity with the oppressed--but I don't think that you or I grasp that in its entirety or essence and I don't trust myself or you to conjecture much beyond that.

All other power and all other concepts of right and wrong are up for grabs and unfold historically.

I can say what I think a sin is and what it isn't within those parameters, but I would not trust myself or anyone else beyond those parameters. And I would not condemn anyone, or would not want to condemn anyone, beyond those parameters.

I think that "hate speech" is very much a creature or understanding of the times; definitions will change. Realistically, I fully expect in my lifetime to see the concept pass away or be used against the left. And I expect that my side of the political debate will end up as victims of history in my lifetime. At some other point in time, God willing, there will be a different balance of power and a different social contract.

I researched the therapy described here as best I could and found it to be dangerous. It occured to me that this is politics masquerading as science. It also occured to me that the basis for this therapy and the debates over biology, destiny and psychology are at their core both intrusive and depersonalizing. A dominant group is doing an interrogation of a minority's identity, but the majority has no natural or given right to do so and cannot escape the biases which arise from majority status and the privileges which come with it.

Its a bit like strangers on the street stopping me and asking if I'm saved. I cannot imagine more intrusive questions. My response is usually along the lines of "Get lost!" My reaction to having my sexuality publicly interrogated would be rather more reactive and mean-spirited.

As for the cited Church Fathers, their writing tell us as much, or more, about them and their times as they do about truth and theology. Thank God that they gave us a living Tradition and not a dead one; a Tradition which we are encouraged to develop with ad through our free will.

I see that there was no direct response to the Torah commentary I mentioned.

One Love.

bob r.

I will add that condemning Galileo's model of the world did not pertain to faith and morals. He was given the chance to teach his thesis as a hypothesis unless he had proof of the contrary as Copernicus did. He refused and moreover had no proofs to provide for the Copernican model and indeed until Sir Issac Newton nobody was able to do so. With the evidence they had the Vatican made the right decision, Copernicus' system could be taught as Copernicus taught it: as a hypothesis not a certainty and Galileo's book was edited and allowed to be read the original put on the Index. Naturally Benedict XIV in light of Newton removed the original from the Index in the 18th century but once again I will remind people Galileo's science does not fall under the magisterium...

...his denial of the Incarnation and the veracity of Scripture...now both of those did. Perhaps a clear understanding of Infallibility is required in this thread. For this I refer you to Newman's: The Vatican Definition [newmanreader.org]

Nonna,

Are you saying that original sin does not exist?

CDL

It�s not disingenuous at all. From both the Christian perspective and the natural law same sex attraction is a disorder. We take our teachings from Jesus Christ, not from the latest scientific claims. Remember Psalm 146:3: �Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation.� What science has to say about the cause of this disorder has nothing to do with God�s law. Science is not above God.

A homosexual inclination is certainly a disorder. That is a truth that comes to us from Divine Revelation. It is not the only disorder that comes to us as result of the sin of Adam and Eve but it certainly is one example.

As I stated, the tendency towards alcohol (alcoholism) is not a sin in itself. Drunkenness is a sin, whether one is an alcoholic or not (open your Bible to see for yourself � Romans 13:13 or Galatians 5:21 will do). But the effort to avoid drunkenness is great struggle for those who are alcoholics. Likewise, in your example of gluttony, the tendency (desire) to overeat is not sinful itself but if one does not fight against this tendency one can commit the sin of gluttony.

I think you need to discern between the tendency towards something (which is not sinful) and the actual engaging in behavior that is sinful.

Please forgive me if I misunderstand, but you seem to be saying that man must look not to God but to science for instruction on right and wrong. If so, you have it backward. Science can be used to explain God�s word and help us understand His teachings but we do not alter God�s teachings because science comes up with a new idea.

Regarding Galileo, it might surprise you that there was no dogma about the details of the construction of our universe. The literal explanation of the Genesis account of creation was long held to be true but never an article of faith. Morality � what is right and what is wrong � is an article of faith; one that Christ said would never pass away until He comes again.

As I stated earlier, those afflicted with SSAD do not choose their condition. Most of us could probably never imagine the struggle they endure. We are called to assist them in their daily struggles against sin just as they are called to assist us in our particular daily struggles against sin. The need to avoid judging others cannot take the route of blessing sinful activity.

and again just above:

It�s really pretty sad when someone who identifies himself as a �Byzantine and Latin Catholic� starts accusing people on a Christian bulletin board of hate speech for professing the truths of the faith as taught by the Church.

All of us are infected with a tendency towards sin because of the sin of Adam and Eve. Christ alone can heal us from these diseases. To state this is not hate speech.

All of us are called to repent for our sins. To state this is not hate speech.

No one expect Bob Rossi has made reference to stoning anyone to death. The Church makes distinction between the moral law and the punishment. The law doesn�t change, but Christ can free us from the punishment and make us whole when we repent from our sin. Bob�s attempt to get Christians to abandon Christian teaching by labeling it as �hate speech� is unacceptable.

We�ve had more then enough discussions recently about this topic, so I�m going to close this thread.