NARTH has a nice interview, The Psychology Behind Homosexual Tendencies, with Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, author and contributor to the Catholic Medical Association’s document Homosexuality and Hope. He outlines the official Catholic position, which I think is definitely in line with the ex-gay approach, in that it does NOT involve religious conversion, but does involve healing of emotional wounds that have led to homosexuality. Here’s some quotes:
Those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies identify themselves as homosexual persons and are usually unwilling to examine their emotional conflicts that caused this tendency.…
Most of these men had painful adolescent experiences of significant loneliness and sadness, felt insecure in their masculinity, and had a poor body image. Well-designed research studies have demonstrated a much higher prevalence of psychiatric illness in those who identify themselves as homosexual….
Unresolved paternal anger is regularly misdirected as rebellion against the magisterium and the Church’s teaching on sexual morality. Unfortunately, their denial, defensiveness and anger block their openness to seek the Lord’s help with their emotional and behavioral weaknesses….
In our clinical experience those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies lack an understanding of the origins of their conflicts and of the possibility of healing….
Seminarians with effeminacy, a clear sign of serious affective immaturity, usually failed in their childhood to identify sufficiently with their fathers and male peers. They can benefit from therapy to extinguish effeminate mannerisms and to strengthen their appreciation of their God-given masculinity so that they may become true spiritual fathers….
We have observed many priests grow in holiness and in happiness in their ministry as a result of the healing of their childhood and adolescent male insecurity, loneliness and anger and, subsequently, their same-sex attractions. This healing process has been described in the statement of the Catholic Medical Association, "Homosexuality and Hope."
Glad to see that the Catholics are taking a clinical, logical, and biblical approach.
This is my requisite post in which I say that you don't like gay people Seeker. You know that all of this is complete nonsense, but since you can't square your God creating gays, you tell yourself that it makes more sense for them to suppress all of their "homosexual tendencies" because that will ultimately make them happier.
It's total nonsense, and you know it.
Well, why don't you tell me what *you* think instead of what *I* think. I actually believe that this Catholic statement on homosexuality is well done. And I believe what it says – not because it's Catholic, or even because it "agrees with the Bible," but because it squares with my own observations and "logical" assumptions about man and nature.
I don't, however, agree with supression, but rather, with transformation. I'm sorry, however, that you seem to still stick to an inaccurate and sloppy (and convenient) definition of "hate", even after my repeated efforts to clarify our language with What is Hate?
And besides, you are quick to judge other's motives. You could at least err on the side of caution by accusing me stupidity and poor arguments (which might be a defensible position) rather than malice. As it is said,
"Never attribute to malice what can be accounted for by ignorance."
There is only one word to describe all this:
HORSESHIT
It’s amusing when you straights get together to pontificate on gay people and try to figure out why we don’t conform to your narrow view of reality. You can all go to the hell you so fear.
Oh, yes, there’s one other word to describe you:
PATHETIC
jerks
I don’t know, Seeker: In my mind, malice and ignorance go hand in hand. I don’t see a big difference. I don’t think that you’re willfully trying to hurt gay people. You probably do think that all this unprovable theories are true, and your convictions are hardened even more when you see that they jibe with conventional Christian theology. I guess I’d call that ignorance, though I certainly see how it could appear malicious, since it leads you to baselessly insult people.
The problem with your assumptions is that they’re wholely unproven. Lots of of really smart researchers have spent a lot of time on this subject, and nobody has ever been able to reliably point to a cause of homosexuality. Given all the different theories and leads that people have about the subject, the best we can honestly say is that we just don’t know nearly enough to present a sound theory.
The smoking gun in your hand is the fact that virtually the only researchers who do feel like they’ve conclusively (though never demonstrably) proven the cause of homosexuality are conservatives and Christians. And those arguments are made less-convincing still by the awful track record that the Church has on subjects like psychology and natural sciences.
A lot of gay people refuse to believe that childhood trauma could possibly be the cause of their homosexuality, and that’s unfortunate, because in some cases there appears to be a strong link. Childhood trauma — mainly sexual trauma — seems to be capable of creating a great number of effects in adult life that cause our sexual desires to swing all over the place. I think that Christian and conservative speculators see this link and assume that it’s the only possible explanation, that gays must have all be “psychically injured” when they were kids.
That doesn’t really make any sense, though. The fact is that the demonstrable research that shows links between sexual abuse and adult sexual behavior also shows that there are other, unaccountable causes for adult sexual behavior, and that childhood environments accounts for a large number of other, non-homosexual behaviors too. There are too many conclusive cases of well-adjusted, well-cared for children being gay for your theory to hold any real water. So what we’re left with is a very complicated situation which says very little about any absolute cause for homosexuality.
And beyond that, most research (except, strangly, for most of the conservative, Christian research) indicates that there’s not much point in trying to “transform” gay people, because it’s almost totally ineffective. And even when it does appear to be effective, there are always a lot of unanswered questions and indications of manipulation or dishonesty.
But you and the church have your cause, and you’re sticking to it in spite of what reason and science dictate. I guess that’s faith. There’s not much we can do about that, I suppose, except be glad that I don’t suffer from it, and be happy that most of the Western world understands how indefensible your position and assumptions are.
I watch the news from time to time. I could be misinformed, but it seems to me that the Catholics haven't done a very good job of dealing with the sexual tendencies of their clergy.
If we are looking for resources to heal sexual hurts, we might want to find an organization with a better track record on the matter.
At a certain AA meeting in Boston known as a “Gay” meeting, I noticed that as various gay men told their stories, I heard many instances of childhood incest or abuse. I am not gay but asked my friend whom is gay if he thought there was an oversampling of childhood sexual abuse in the histories of gay men and he said that it certainly seemed that way. Is there any research on this?
I’m gay and I never had any childhood sexual abuse. In fact, my childhood was quite banal and suburban.
btw: What were you, a straight, doing at a “gay” meeting?
Yes, and Louis’s one point of data overrides all clinical data showing the very high correlation of sexual abuse with homosexual outcomes.
It also ignores the many OTHER factors that lead to homosexuality. Sexual abuse is only one, though significant factor.
What it means is that you cannot generalize from the experiences of a few (ie, a handful of guys at one AA meeting) to all – despite the efforts of homophobes.
He's not generalizing, he's seeing a trend and asking for studies to see if it is real correlation, if not causation. And yes, it is real, and there is a huge correlation between childhood sexual abuse and homosexuality, and logical mechanisms that would indicate a causative pathway.
I will gather the data when I have a chance, but in the meantime, look through our previous posts on homosexuality.
I see, a handfull of guys in an AA meeting indicates a trend? And, of course, these are dysfunctional people who are fighting addiction. Maybe you should look for a correlation between addiction and childhood sexual abuse instead. Of course, that wouldn't jibe with your jihad against gay people, would it? Why not question straight members of AA to ascertain whether there's a disproportionate number of abuse victims in the hetero community? Has anyone done a study of well-adjusted gay people – those without addiction or other mental problems – to prove this supposed abuse problem?
When you look at people with mental problems only (as was the case with the earliest studies of gay people – those in mental hospitals), you will guarantee a correlation between hx and maladjustment. This is not only unfair but profoundly unscientific.
>> And, of course, these are dysfunctional people who are fighting addiction.
And gays have a higher rate of addiction, so that makes sense.
>> Maybe you should look for a correlation between addiction and childhood sexual abuse instead.
I'm sure that is so. I would bet that sexual abuse leads to all kinds of unhealthy coping mechanisms and mis-development of the self – addiction AND homosexuality are expected outcomes.
>> Has anyone done a study of well-adjusted gay people – those without addiction or other mental problems – to prove this supposed abuse problem?
By preselecting 'well-adjusted' gay people, you are already biasing your sample. A representative cross section shows a high correlation between sexual abuse and homosexual outcomes. But I suppose you could design a study that compensates for that bias.
>> you will guarantee a correlation between hx and maladjustment.
No, an unbiased sample shows a much higher correlation between hx and maladjustment. That does not prove that hx itself is a maladjustment, but it does present questions about the nature and origins of hx.
Why are men the predominant pedophiles? Does that mean that there is something wrong with being male? Not necessarily. But if you wanted to suggest that there is something 'wrong' with being male (as the hyper feminists have done with the agressive side of the true masculine), you might suggest how such things come about.
>> This is not only unfair but profoundly unscientific.
I think we can agree on what it scientific (evolution/creation aside), but when it comes to the results of the studies that meet those criteria, we find fault. The question is, are we being honest and reasoned, or merely defending our opinions?
For example, when I see reports that hx may be influenced by genetics by up to 40%, or as low as 10%, what do I make of that? If I believe that hx is totally genetic, I may not want to accept the results even if they are legit. If I think that hx is totally environmental, same thing.
Me, I switched from a totally environmental to a 'both nature and nurture' model due to the data. That's science. But taking incomplete or bad data and experiments and basing my opinions on those (like the flawed twin studies in America or the hypothalamus studies) are just political and ideological, not scientific.