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

Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality: A New Clinical Approach (Paperback) [amazon.com]

Just check out the positive reviews, how well recommended they are and just how many men formerly of homosexual orientation have given the book the thumbsup. For all those struggling the cross maybe this could be of assistance? For those of us who do not have it, this research would probably come in quite handy as an apologetical resource.

PS) For parents Nicolosi has written a book about preventing homosexuality. It might be useful...

Nicolosi is hardly respected in his profession. The "positive" reviews do not reflect the real harm that "ex-gay" therapies have done to so many gay men and women.

We have a dear friend who came out of the gay life style that has nothing but praise for Nicolosi. In fact the man did his counceling with our friend over long distance phone calls.

I've heard good things about Nicolosi.

Also here is a statement by the Catholic Medical Association on homosexuality and reparative theraphy.

http://www.narth.com/docs/hope.html

I don't understand the issue very well. So I read

http://math.ucsd.edu/~weinrich/NCLSWNRC.HTML

and

http://www.nd.edu/~amanier/leftjab.html

and

http://www.hatecrime.org/exgay.html.

And, wow, did I get scared!

One Love.

bob r.

Myles,

You are of course correct in the sense that effects of original sin can be reversed. That is the point of Theosis. It may take a lifetime. In fact, it usually does. But it is well worth the effort. That this particular effect of sin is a very powerful one. But the greater the sin the greater the grace. I suspect, following the suggestions of my priest who followed the suggestions of Pope John Paul II, that those who overcome this sin will be more sainted than most others who overcome theirs. What is disturbing is the fact that those who promote the hedonistic lifestyle persecute those who are freed from it. What is even more disturbing are those who profess to be Christians but persecute these saints as well.

Let us praise God for those who are overcomers. Let us be quiet about matters of which we know almost nothing. Let us rejoice with the overcomers and pray for those still trapped in this lifestyle. Let us not make life for the saints in the making any more difficult than it is.

CDL

God calls upon all of us to change from our sinful ways.

I Corinthians 1-9 Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, 10 Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.

11 And such some of you were; but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God.

If we take the position that homosexuals may not be able to change from there sinful ways, we may as well make the same argument for fornicators, adulterors and thieves.

I agree that it is scary to imagine a person being able to overcome the effects of original sin without Christ and the Church but what's even more scary is the belief that people cannot overcome sin. It is scary.

CDL

And even still scarier is the idea that calling upon homosexuals to repent should be considered a hate crime.

Lawrence,

Right you are.

CDL

Well, you should check out the links I included. I think they prove that this therapy doen't work and that it serves as a cover for a political agenda. I didn't know this beforehand.

And I don't think that this is about calling people on their sins. There is enough sin to go around and I don't want to be the one casting the first stone, you know.

This is just about politics. And politics masked as science has an eerie association in my mind with the nazis--and it probably should in yours as well.

I can imagine how a concerned friend could approach a gay friend and talk to him about being gay. That might be okay, although everyone needs to respect boundaries.

And I could imagine that someone could put gays in the same class as actual criminals and approach them and how that would indeed be hate speech. And I'm really coming to be in favor of locking up people who engage in hate speech.

And I can most easily and happily imagine that we can celebrate the diversity given to us by God, celebrate the positives that everyone brings to society and leave the rest to God.

Thoase links convinced me--this therapy is dangerous!

One Love.

bob r.

Well if there actual cases of ex-gays being helped by this kind of therapy it doesn't matter what certain psychologists might opine. A formerly homosexual man tesifying to the fact that it works is evidence enough for me. To be honest Bob I dont see why you have such a problem with this?

For all of the problems cited above. Its politics masquerading as science, it doesn't work and it gets uncomfortably close to being a hate crime. The rhetoric I'm reading here confirms my suspicions about this, but the links above and reflection on this convinced me.

One Love.

bob r.

By celebrating what you call diversity in this instance, is in reality celebrating perversity.

And this, to you, doesn't have an eerie association with the Nazis?

Bob,

When someone with another opinion of what constitutes hate crimes gets their hands on power I will come and visit you in prison. Ok?

CDL

Where exactly in the Bible is the prohibition on homosexuality? I've never been clear on that.

You're kidding, right?

Genesis, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (sodomy?) God destroyed the cities because of the perversions committed within them. No, it wasn't because of inhospitality.

The Mosaic law proscribes the penalty of DEATH for those who commit those acts.

And in the passage from 1 Corinthians that Lawrence quoted. Effeminate is the Biblical word for men who lie with men, because they were emasculated by what happens during the act.

Also, the Fathers of the Chruch were VERY opposed to homosexual acts. Especially, due to the fact that the pagan cults used them in their worship.

All power in all societies revolves around class and which class is in power and the social, productive and distributive systems in place which put and keep them there.

All justice, therefore, is class justice but reflects the ebb and flow of struggles for civil rights.

It is extremely naive of people to believe in justice abstractly or in an abstract sense.

I don't expect kindness or understanding from the system. I would like to believe that if I or my side were in power we would show more mercy, but I doubt it.

One thing I greatly admire about the right is its ability or willingness to exercise control and power in both subtle and direct ways, enforcing agreement and silence when needed. Prison is not only the last resort, it is also the first or second resort. And the right is not at all hypocritical about this, either; they're very clear that the issue is power and control.

(Examples: be "insubordinate" at work and you lose your job with no hope of further employment. Refuse registration or the draft during war and you go to jail. Actively opposing imperialism outside of the boundaries set up by imperialism gets you sent to prison.)

And one thing that makes me despair of the left is our shared naivete about the nature of power and our expectations of justice under this system.

I would not have said this one year ago, and certainly not before reading the postings here and thinking about them.

Its unlikely that hate speech will become more or less of a crime in the near future in the US, but I do wish that it would indeed be considered a real crime and that the penalties for it would be enforced. I would like to see haste speech defined as attacks on civil society and the positive gains of the Enlightenment and the mediating institutions and social contracts which flowed from the Enlightenment; attack that and off you go to jail. This is only wishful and naive thinking on my part.

One poster asks if this does not remind me of nazism. No, it doesn't--not at all.

Conservatives have a valid point in claiming that civil society must collectively defend itself from those who would destroy it.

I believe that hate speech is aimed at destroying civil society.

What we disagree on here is who is attacking civil society and what civil society actually is.

I do not believe that we disagree on principles, however.

The ebb and flow at the ballot box is important, but these are issues which ultimately get settled elsewhere. I expect that, in my life time, the tide will turn for awhile and people like me will indeed end up in prisons or worse. It happened 70 years ago, after all. Anyone on my side of the political divide who does not get this is indeed naive--and the left is home to some of the most naive people on the planet.

So this is a long and rather complicaed response about hate speech and the question of nazism. I'm sorry if this took us off topic.

One Love.

bob r.

Dear Eric,

So can you post the actual quotations with the chapter and verse numbers? (you know give me the "citation")?

Thanks
Nonna

That's a beautiful statement about civil society and hate speech, Caro Roberto.
Keep up the spirit!
Nonna

I have a personal friend who was greatly helped by Dr. Nicolosi. Was he 'cured'? No. Is his life better now? Yes. I don't think (it's possible that i'm wrong) that Dr. Nicolosi claims to be able to cure homosexuals from their orientation so that all vestages of it are gone. What he does do is teach men how to be masculine.

Please explain to me how this kind of therapy is 'hate speech?" That's about the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

Jason

Oh, I bet you have indeed heard more ridiculous things in your life.

I was responding to what was written above.

I think that if you talk about "curing" someone of homosexuality you are saying that that person has a disease. That sounds like hate peech to me.

I think that if you talk about calling or forcing someone to repent for the "sin" of homosexuality that sounds like hate speech.

I think that if you engage in loose talk about Biblical injunctions of stoning people to death for homosexual acts you are engaging in hate speech.

I am NOT saying that people who do this in this forum are haters. I am ONLY commenting on the speech.

I don't know what "masculine" means or if any two people can agree on a definition of it. Therefore, I don't think that it can be taught or learned or forced upon someone. And today's "masculinity" can mean something else tomorrow or in another culture. Frankly, much "masculine" behavior seems offensive to me.

But, you know, my point about hate speech was off topic and I apologized for that. The left, the gays, the Roma, the Jews and many real believers and faithful got stars and triangles handed to them 70 years ago. I expect that this will happen again, in one social form or another and along the same lines as before. Hate speech inevitably leads there, but that isn't the point of this thread.

One Love.

bob r.

(rant)
Please don't leave out the Slavs! They're always being left out. Hitler would have "liquidated" the Slavs as efficiently as his own citizens, if they didn't own guns and have armies and such. In any case many Slavs were swept up by the SS and sent to concentration camps. We had two people in our church who were children in the concentration camps -- Christian Slavs.

The Holocaust took the lives of 11 million people -- not just 6 million.

History is not what happened -- its what we remember!
(which is why the Berlin Holocaust memorial is such a travesty to *all* the victims of the Nazis. It only bothers to commemorate a subset.
(rant over)

Bob

Do you believe that homosexuality is a sin ?

Being, as I am, fond of peaches, I could never approve of a "hate peech".

"Masculine", I believe, is used to refer to some characteristic or set of characteristics commonly associated with male members of the human race. As such, it is often associated with stereotypes.

"Masculine" is also a grammatical term referring to the gender of nouns and adjectives. A table, for example, is masculine in Russian and Ukrainian but feminine in Latin and French. The average table has no sexual characteristics at all.

A beard, however, is grammatically feminine in Russian, Ukrainian and French, yet is only worn by males. Go figure!

Incognitus

Dear Nonna,

I am not being right or left, Republican or Democrat, just a struggling Orthodox Christian and a friend of Roman Catholic teaching, when I say that the Church, East and West, believes homosexuality along with some heterosexual acts as well, are sinful.

Does that mean that we hate or are judgementally intolerant of those who engage in premarital, extramarital, and other acts of heterosexual sexuality...NO, and neither do I think that anyone on this forum has intended or displayed intolerant judgmentalism or hatred towards those of the homosexual inclination.

We live in difficult and confusing times and we all contend to some degree or another, with what our holy Church Fathers have called 'the passions', whether we are single, married, male, female, homo or heterosexual. We are all in the boat of spiritual struggles together. For some these passions are more easily conquered than others. It is not for any of us to cast the first stone. That is why our holy Orthodox and Roman Catholic confessors help us with the struggles--struggles that they too, as human beings and men, married and celibate, know of.

With all due love and respect to you and others, does everything here, including matters of Church teaching, really need to be reduced to divisive politics?

Blessings and love in Christ,
Alice

I'm not sure what the point of singling me out and asking me publicly about my conception of sin is.

Excuse me if I look a bit like a deer in headlights just now.

I don't think I know what all sins are and I try not to judge individuals. I also don't think I know how to weigh sins, or if they can be weighed at all.

And I don't think you know either.

Before I cast a stone--and this kind of therapy and the rhetoric surrounding this does indeed seem like a stone--I need to be more certain of myself and others.

I can name many sins I'm in a rush to condemn. Some of these may be valid, others may not be. If the sins I'm choosing to condemn have a Biblical basis but do not match your list, which may also have a Biblical basis, how do we decide who is right and who is wrong? How do we move forward?

I submit that compassion should guide us in those cases. And this therapy and the rhetoric surrounding it do not seem compassionate to me.

I also submit--and this is in response to Alice--that this is essentially a series of political questions, political steps and political results. It is not that anyone, left or right, is injecting divisive politics into a religious discussion. IOt is very much that the Kingdom of God includes all things. Boff's book on the Our Father and Hail Mary prayers makes this quite clear, and especially so when he rfernces existing Church documents.

One Love.

bob r.

NO Bob, my opinion is not what makes it a sin. It's God's clear commandment and the church's clear teaching on the subject that makes homosexuality a grievous sin.

You state that you don't know what all sins are, and that you do not want to judge individuals, yet at the same time you think that those who ask homosexuals to repent of there sins may be guilty of hate speech and as such should be punished. What you are advocating is the persecution of those who obey God's word.

So can no one really provide the Biblical references that prohibit homosexuality?

I'm serious here. Some one must have the knowledge...

N

Dear Paul you posted the following by Bob Rossi:

"And I'm really coming to be in favor of locking up people who engage in hate speech."

I say:

I totally agree with your following response:

"And this, to you, doesn't have an eerie association with the Nazis?"

What is interesting to know is that at the time the Nazis were coming into power, the nationalist movement was supported by a strong group of homosexuals. Eventually he killed them.

But that of course was only one of the many cruelties of the era. An era when two opposing 'evils' comfronted one another: Communism and Fascism. Very similar to the evils of our own time: Secularism and Islam.

We must take into consideration that a society as immoral as that of Berlin in the 1920's, a society without any 'religious' constraints, and further burdened by an economic depression, is bound to be a breeding ground for the growth of all 'negative' (demonic) behavior. To see the end result, we have only to look at the pictures of Europe at the end of the war.

Zenovia

Dear Alice,

Since you addressed your post to me, I'm confused. Where have my posts here "reduced" the topic to divisive politics?

With love,
Nonna

Dear Bob,

I don't know much about the liberation theologian Leonardo Boff, I am sorry. I know that his sentiments are good, but that he has been silenced by the Church.

Therefore, I prefer, as an *obedient* (that may seem like a bad, unenlightened and ignorant word to some I suppose) Orthodox Christian to follow the teachings of the Church Fathers, Doctors of the Church and great saints, whether they are Orthodox or Catholic. They sit well with my soul and the spiritual life I have explored, experienced, and sometimes questioned, all my life.

I believe that the Pope of Blessed memory, John Paul II, will become one of those saints and doctors of the Church. As a modern theologian, I have great respect for his teachings, example and authority. If he did not condone the theology of Boff, then I don't need to explore it.

If I did not wish to follow this path, I would not be Orthodox OR Roman or Byzantine Catholic and I probably would be on a different forum.

Blessings and love in Jesus Christ,
Alice

I think we all need to take a deep breath here.

It seems that whenever anything related to this subject is posted, we have the passions inflamed were everyone seems to take one side or another and tries to justify their opinion as the way. I have followed this type of therapy for almost my entire priesthood, since Elizabeth Morebly made a presentation at Saint Vladimir Orthodox Theological Seminary on the subject in 1991. A number of interesting points are brought about with this matter.

While I do not condone or condemn the therapy, or argue regarding the lifestyle when actively practiced is sinful, I have to make the following observation. Therapy of any sort is useless unless the person seeks it out. It is only effective if the person is able to embrace the therapy and make it work for themselves. Even then, it must be practiced constantly in their lives for any long term results.

While I look at such therapies with professional interest, I have to remark that the results of all studies published regarding this matter have been based on very short term results, and from statistics I have seen published beyond the 5 year mark, have been very disappointing to say the least.

As in any sin and behavior, the desire for change must come from within, and then by the Grace of God may be effective. This applies not only to homosexuality, but any sin or undesirable behavior for that matter. Therapies come and go almost with the regularity of changing fashion. If any desire to turn from sin, the Great Physician is available to all. He and only He will prescribe the way for those to change and avoid the occasion of fall.

We are all subject to sins. We all struggle with them daily. Yet, we all succumb to them also on a regular basis. One of which we all seem to do is judge others for what is yet to be proven realistically as the way of repair from sin.

I hate (figuratively) to see the threads on this subject, because they become extremly passionate and obssessive. Prayer cures all and changes all only if we approach God with a pure heart and an earnest desire.

I pray, that we can come to peace with this and stop looking to justify ourselves before each other.

Forgive me if I offended.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Originally posted by Bob Rossi:Originally posted by Bob Rossi:


So this is a long and rather complicaed response about hate speech and the question of nazism. I'm sorry if this took us off topic.

One Love.

bob r.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's a beautiful statement about civil society and hate speech, Caro Roberto.
Keep up the spirit!
Nonna



I ask your forgiveness, truly.

Bob R started it and that post should have been addressed to him.

You seem to accept him doing it, though my post should still have been addressed to him.

Again asking your forgiveness at my confusion.
In Christ,
Alice

Dear Bob you said:

"I think that if you talk about calling or forcing someone to repent for the "sin" of homosexuality that sounds like hate speech.

I think that if you engage in loose talk about Biblical injunctions of stoning people to death for homosexual acts you are engaging in hate speech.

I am NOT saying that people who do this in this forum are haters. I am ONLY commenting on the speech."

I say:

I am an Orthodox Christian. I believe that all concepts of right and wrong is through the love of the Holy Spirit that comes into one's heart. But in order to acquire the reasoning that is Christianity, one must first accept themselves as being a sinner and repent. It is only then that our hearts can be open so that our Lord and His love and comprehension can come inside.

It is not for us to judge which part of the teachings of our Lord we want to accept, and which part we do not want to accept, but rather our Lord does it for us by entering into our hearts and giving us the 'discernment' to 'know' what is right and wrong.

So you might believe in one way according to the discernment, if any, our Lord has given you, and I and others might believe in another way, according to the discernment, if any, our Lord has given me and others.

Topic I believe is ended.

Zenovia

Dear Alice:

I lauded the tone and thought that Bob put into his post. I did not necessarily agree with every detail in it. I didn't see Bob's post about hate speech as divisive. He was merely expressing his own heartfelt reaction to the things he was reading in this thread.

Frankly, I find more divisive the judgemental pronouncements made by other in this thread who seem to spend a lot of time focussing on the sins of others when they might do better to focus on their own sins. WE all would do better to focus on our own sins.

What is the First Commandment?
And what is the Second Comandment?
and who exactly is our "neighbor"?

with love,
Nonna

Dear Zenovia,

You really make me smile! *chuckle*

Those that talk the loudest longest and last aren't really winners. Winning is only an illusion.

with love,
Nonna

Dear Nonna,

I don't think that the posters here (who, granted, I have come to know because of the length of time they have been here) are focusing on other's sins.

I truly think that they are trying to be helpful with a problem that seems to affect many in society today. Similar discussions have been had about divorce, and abortion, too.

If any poster is deemed uncharitably judgemental in words or tone, they will be told so.

These are complex situations with very personal struggles, that the Church (and that includes Orthodoxy as well) addresses all the time. As such, they are not innapropriate, in my humble opinion, for a religious forum under the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Best regards and love,
Alice

Dear Bob,

To clarify what I posted above, I believe that there is definitely a right and wrong. The Ten Commandments are not the ten suggestions. What I meant about the heart, is that we are not able to comprehend God's truths without opening our hearts to our Lord's love and accepting ourselves as fallible human beings and therefore sinners.

To sin is human, but to believe that a sin is not a sin in order to excuse one's behavior, is sinning against the Holy Spirit...and God cannot forgive a sin if one refuses to accept it as a sin.

But again it comes down to 'discernment', and that again comes down to opening one's heart to our Lord's Grace in order to comprehend what is sinful and what is not.

Prayer is the answer. Only prayer can free us from sin. Everything else, including this discussion is foolishness. Believe me it has nothing to do with politics...

Zenovia

Nonna,
Here is a link to a site that has a dialogue on homosexuality:

http://www.catholicintl.com/catholicissues/bib_homo.htm

Sorry, but I've been at work, those darn patients keep me from my evangelization work!

Genesis 13:13
Genesis 18:16-19:29
Leviticus 18:22-23 and 20:13
Judges 19
Romans 1:25-27
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
1 Timothy 1:9-10
Jude 7

The inhospitality argument is covered in the above link.

The Bible actually condones and elevates marriage, this is the true way to expres sexual love. "In the beginning he created them male and female..."

I didn't tell anyone here to read Boff, though I think that he's great. I said, or tried to say, that his opening pages on his book about the Our Father and the Hail Mary prayers explain a fundamental concept of how everything in creation is within God and that, and from that, makes politics (for instance) an extension of the sacred. Boff backed up his point by quoting two Popes and at least one document from a Bishop's Conference. And he wasn't silenced for that book, which was published by a Catholic press and is today distributed by a Catholic distributor.

I don't share the interpretation of the Ten Commandments given here but, even if I did, I would also say that those are balanced by the Beatitudes and the commandmant to love.

There is no doubt that I am a judgemental person with a great deal of angst and a terrible sinner besides. You all can safely agree on that and I will agree. But I would not want to compound my sins by accepting the premises of the pseudo-therapy which this thread began with or the rhetoric surrounding it.

One Love.

bob r.

Dr. Eric,

You are about to get sucker punched. Be careful.

CDL

My classic Torah commentary understands the "In the beginning he created them male and female..." to mean that our first ancestor or ancestors had characteristics of both men and women.

Now, one can argue the point but one cannot argue that this is a proper and historically accepted Jewish interpretation of the text. I will provide the citation of the commentator if you doubt this.

And one would be hard pressed to say that we get to pick and choose from religious texts in order to make our political case.

So, for instance, if you are going to quote the Ten Commandments from the Old Testament and accept all of them as still fully relevent and as applying to us all, you must also accept all that went with the Ten Commandments.

That means all of the laws which flowed into and out of the Ten Commandments.

Good luck.

And, still further and if only for the sake of consistency, you must also accept every part of the Old Testament as it was intended to be understood.

And that would mean accepting the above interpretation, or at least sriously considering it.

And that would certainly and logically change your understanding of gender and gender roles and the place of gender in our lives.

At the very least you would have to say that you don't know what the text really means.

And not understanding the full meaning of the text ought to give all of us good pause before we support the kind of therapy mentioned here or talk much longer about masculinity.

One Love.

bob r.

You can disagree with me, but you'd better not mess with these guys:

Justin Martyr

"[W]e have been taught that to expose newly-born children is the part of wicked men; and this we have been taught lest we should do anyone harm and lest we should sin against God, first, because we see that almost all so exposed (not only the girls, but also the males) are brought up to prostitution. And for this pollution a multitude of females and hermaphrodites, and those who commit unmentionable iniquities, are found in every nation. And you receive the hire of these, and duty and taxes from them, whom you ought to exterminate from your realm. And anyone who uses such persons, besides the godless and infamous and impure intercourse, may possibly be having intercourse with his own child, or relative, or brother. And there are some who prostitute even their own children and wives, and some are openly mutilated for the purpose of sodomy; and they refer these mysteries to the mother of the gods" (First Apology 27 [A.D. 151]).

Clement of Alexandria

"All honor to that king of the Scythians, whoever Anacharsis was, who shot with an arrow one of his subjects who imitated among the Scythians the mystery of the mother of the gods . . . condemning him as having become effeminate among the Greeks, and a teacher of the disease of effeminacy to the rest of the Scythians" (Exhortation to the Greeks 2 [A.D. 190]).

"[According to Greek myth] Baubo [a female native of Eleusis] having received [the goddess] Demeter hospitably, reached to her a refreshing draught; and on her refusing it, not having any inclination to drink (for she was very sad), and Baubo having become annoyed, thinking herself slighted, uncovered her shame, and exhibited her nudity to the goddess. Demeter is delighted with the sight�pleased, I repeat, at the spectacle. These are the secret mysteries of the Athenians; these Orpheus records" (ibid.).

"It is not, then, without reason that the poets call him [Hercules] a cruel wretch and a nefarious scoundrel. It were tedious to recount his adulteries of all sorts, and debauching of boys. For your gods did not even abstain from boys, one having loved Hylas, another Hyacinthus, another Pelops, another Chrysippus, another Ganymede. Let such gods as these be worshipped by your wives, and let them pray that their husbands be such as these�so temperate; that, emulating them in the same practices, they may be like the gods. Such gods let your boys be trained to worship, that they may grow up to be men with the accursed likeness of fornication on them received from the gods" (ibid.).

...

"In accordance with these remarks, conversation about deeds of wickedness is appropriately termed filthy [shameful] speaking, as talk about adultery and pederasty and the like" (The Instructor 6, ca. A.D. 193).

"The fate of the Sodomites was judgment to those who had done wrong, instruction to those who hear. The Sodomites having, through much luxury, fallen into uncleanness, practicing adultery shamelessly, and burning with insane love for boys; the All-seeing Word, whose notice those who commit impieties cannot escape, cast his eye on them. Nor did the sleepless guard of humanity observe their licentiousness in silence; but dissuading us from the imitation of them, and training us up to his own temperance, and falling on some sinners, lest lust being unavenged, should break loose from all the restraints of fear, ordered Sodom to be burned,
pouring forth a little of the sagacious fire on licentiousness; lest lust, through want of punishment, should throw wide the gates to those that were rushing into voluptuousness. Accordingly, the just punishment of the Sodomites became to men an image of the salvation which is well calculated for men. For those who have not committed like sins with those who are punished, will never receive a like punishment" (ibid., 8).

Basil the Great

"He who is guilty of unseemliness with males will be under discipline for the same time as adulterers" (Letters 217:62 [A.D. 367]).

"If you [O, monk] are young in either body or mind, shun the companionship of other young men and avoid them as you would a flame. For through them the enemy has kindled the desires of many and then handed them over to eternal fire, hurling them into the vile pit of the five cities under the pretense of spiritual love. . . . At meals take a seat far from other young men. In lying down to sleep let not their clothes be near yours, but rather have an old man between you. When a young man converses with you, or sings psalms facing you, answer him with eyes cast down, lest perhaps by gazing at his face you receive a seed of desire sown by the enemy and reap sheaves of corruption and ruin. Whether in the house or in a place where there is no one to see your actions, be not found in his company under the pretense either of studying the divine oracles or of any other business whatsoever, however necessary" (The Renunciation of the World [A.D. 373]).

John Chrysostom

"[The pagans] were addicted to the love of boys, and one of their wise men made a law that pederasty . . . should not be allowed to slaves, as if it was an honorable thing; and they had houses for this purpose, in which it was openly practiced. And if all that was done among them was related, it would be seen that they openly outraged nature, and there was none to restrain them. . . . As for their passion for boys, whom they called their paedica, it is not fit to be named" (Homilies on Titus 5 [A.D. 390]).

"[Certain men in church] come in gazing about at the beauty of women; others curious about the blooming youth of boys. After this, do you not marvel that [lightning] bolts are not launched [from heaven], and all these things are not plucked up from their foundations? For worthy both of thunderbolts and hell are the things that are done; but God, who is long-suffering, and of great mercy, forbears awhile his wrath, calling you to repentance and amendment" (Homilies on Matthew 3:3 [A.D. 391]).

"All of these affections [in Rom. 1:26�27] . . . were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored than the body in diseases" (Homilies on Romans 4 [A.D. 391]).

"[The men] have done an insult to nature itself. And a yet more disgraceful thing than these is it, when even the women seek after these intercourses, who ought to have more shame than men" (ibid.).

"And sundry other books of the philosophers one may see full of this disease. But we do not therefore say that the thing was made lawful, but that they who received this law were pitiable, and objects for many tears. For these are treated in the same way as women that play the whore. Or rather their plight is more miserable. For in the case of the one the intercourse, even if lawless, is yet according to nature; but this is contrary both to law and nature. For even if there were no hell, and no punishment had been threatened, this would be worse than any punishment" (ibid.)

From www.catholic.com [catholic.com]

Once again, the Church decided which of the Mosaic Laws were ceremonial and which were binding on us. I'm not going to argue with Sts. Paul, Jude, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Basil the Great, and "Our Father in the Faith St. John Chrysostom."

I don't know what this therapy is about, so I can't comment. I know that many children have been subjected to horrible torments and these experiences can warp them. I'm not a psychologist, but I have an interest in the field and have discussed this theme with those in the field.

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.