DREADLETTERS: 'Curing' Homosexuality, NARTH, MercatorNet, SSA Therapy & Scientific Research
[UPDATE] Here comes Fred "could be" Thompson.
[UPDATE] Australian Labor Party leader Kevin Rudd commits his Party to a domestic partnership policy. The proposals are broadly in line with the Catholic-friendly solutions advocated by DREADNOUGHT in Perth's The Record newspaper (February 1, 2007).
:: Alright, We'll Check Under the Bed ::
DREADNOUGHT receives many questions about the US-based National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality ("NARTH"). Many DREADNOUGHTERS dislike the body, often intensely. One particularly wounded DREADNOUGHTER sent email detailing her deep distress at something someone from NARTH had written. The others described generally negative experiences with NARTH. I must say, I am yet to receive an email from a same sex attracted ("SSA") man or woman who praises the organisation. Indeed, not a few times I've been forced to correct something NARTH has said that does not accord with a properly Catholic presentation/understanding of either same sex attraction in particular or human sexuality in general.
:: It's Not the Pope ::
It is important to note, then, that while NARTH counts among its numbers various doctors who belong to the Catholic Church, it is not itself a canonical Catholic body. It has no official links to the Catholic Church and many of the positions it advocates, being merely medical or psychiatric, are not therefore binding Vatican pronouncements, authoritative transmissions of the deposit of faith or otherwise prima facie compelling for Catholics.
:: It's Not the Bomb ::
On a personal level, I have great reservations about this sort of approach to same sex attraction. This is mainly because I think it results from a category mistake. Some people think same sex attraction is 'disordered' in the same way that bulimia nervosa is a disorder or schizophrenia is a disorder (i.e., as a DSM-IV listed mental disorder). This might be the case, but that it definitely is the case is not a Catholic teaching. In fact, the Church does not speak about a homosexual 'disorder' at all. Rather, the 'disordered' the Church refers to* when she describes homogenital acts as 'intrinsically disordered' and the inclination to such acts as 'objectively disordered' is not a merely or even predominantly psychiatric/psychological term. Rather it is a term borrowed from moral philosophy, specifically from the nomenclature of analytical Thomism. Even great and orthodox Catholics sometimes make this mistake, but a mistake it is and it must be avoided.
:: Is that Really what They're Saying About Us? ::
It is important to make these points over, not least because a recent email demonstrated that even long-time DREADNOUGHTERs are confused. If you are confused, I tremble to think of the often emotionally vulnerable, sometimes extremely fragile young men and women who occasionally read NARTH or similar material and come up against a wall of what to them sounds like carefully footnoted hate or seemingly authoritative bile.
:: Here's the Monster! ::
Such a characterisation of NARTH is, in some cases, incorrect. NARTH, as far as DREADNOUGHT can tell, is helmed by people who actually care about SSA men and women. These doctors appear to work hard to ensure, often at great professional risk, that an enlightened approach to human sexuality guides the medical and other health professions. However, they don't immediately endear themselves to Catholics and others with releases like this.^
:: And, He's Not so Frightening After All ::
To combat confusion and re-iterate the Catholic position on these issues, DREADNOUGHT wrote in response:
DREADNOUGHTER,
...I'm not personally familiar with the NARTH crowd. I am not a scientist. I'm not a doctor of medicine. I'm not even a psychologist/psychiatrist. Thus, I don't have much of substance to say about what attempts to be - ostensibly - a medical/scientific argument.
I will say, however, that even general standards of political or philosophical debate hold that a footnote referencing a paper published by a think tank or other body set up to push what amounts to a political agenda (i.e., NARTH) is less convincing than a footnote referencing a paper published by an independent researcher. An author who cites himself as an authority must make sure his earlier research is unimpeachable or insightful indeed before relying on a majority of self-references.
Thus, an open-letter endorsing NARTH's position that is signed almost exclusively by individuals who belong to NARTH is a bit like DREADNOUGHT's glowing review of DREADNOUGHT. That is, not very seemly.
Similarly, if the authors were primarily concerned with the plight of SSA men and women, why waste so much effort on a pamphlet written such that it reads like an argument for why homoactivists or medical practitioners who disagree with NARTH are wrong and not enough like an argument for why SSA men and women need NARTH's help/ideas? I am sure those involved are trying to do good work, but I didn't find this terribly convincing and/or illuminating and if it failed to move me, then it is not going to sway others who are hostile to the truth about human sexuality.
I'm also not that keen on merely psychological/medical prescriptions or treatments for SSA. They seem to me to bypass the wider issues, hoping for something like a pill or a session that might 'cure' something that has not just emotional or psychic aspects, but deep spiritual, philosophical and political aetiologies/meanings/ramifications.
Best wishes,
- DREADNOUGHT
:: The Upshot ::
One lives chastity. That which demands chastity, namely the Church in the name of God's law of love, would not be satisfied with a short cut or a merely therapeutic response. It is not appropriate or indeed terribly Christian, to attempt to merely program the good or else induce it via drug or other therapies. NARTH-endorsed approaches might indeed prove useful for some, let us pray they do, but nothing means they must be good per se, nor that Catholics who are same sex attracted or otherwise inclined must find NARTH's arguments or positions immediately convincing and/or authoritative.
:: Resources ::
^ (The open letter did not originate on MercatorNet, it was re-posted there. Here is what DREADNOUGHT thinks of Opus Dei).
[UPDATE] Australian Labor Party leader Kevin Rudd commits his Party to a domestic partnership policy. The proposals are broadly in line with the Catholic-friendly solutions advocated by DREADNOUGHT in Perth's The Record newspaper (February 1, 2007).
:: Alright, We'll Check Under the Bed ::
DREADNOUGHT receives many questions about the US-based National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality ("NARTH"). Many DREADNOUGHTERS dislike the body, often intensely. One particularly wounded DREADNOUGHTER sent email detailing her deep distress at something someone from NARTH had written. The others described generally negative experiences with NARTH. I must say, I am yet to receive an email from a same sex attracted ("SSA") man or woman who praises the organisation. Indeed, not a few times I've been forced to correct something NARTH has said that does not accord with a properly Catholic presentation/understanding of either same sex attraction in particular or human sexuality in general.
:: It's Not the Pope ::
It is important to note, then, that while NARTH counts among its numbers various doctors who belong to the Catholic Church, it is not itself a canonical Catholic body. It has no official links to the Catholic Church and many of the positions it advocates, being merely medical or psychiatric, are not therefore binding Vatican pronouncements, authoritative transmissions of the deposit of faith or otherwise prima facie compelling for Catholics.
:: It's Not the Bomb ::
On a personal level, I have great reservations about this sort of approach to same sex attraction. This is mainly because I think it results from a category mistake. Some people think same sex attraction is 'disordered' in the same way that bulimia nervosa is a disorder or schizophrenia is a disorder (i.e., as a DSM-IV listed mental disorder). This might be the case, but that it definitely is the case is not a Catholic teaching. In fact, the Church does not speak about a homosexual 'disorder' at all. Rather, the 'disordered' the Church refers to* when she describes homogenital acts as 'intrinsically disordered' and the inclination to such acts as 'objectively disordered' is not a merely or even predominantly psychiatric/psychological term. Rather it is a term borrowed from moral philosophy, specifically from the nomenclature of analytical Thomism. Even great and orthodox Catholics sometimes make this mistake, but a mistake it is and it must be avoided.
:: Is that Really what They're Saying About Us? ::
It is important to make these points over, not least because a recent email demonstrated that even long-time DREADNOUGHTERs are confused. If you are confused, I tremble to think of the often emotionally vulnerable, sometimes extremely fragile young men and women who occasionally read NARTH or similar material and come up against a wall of what to them sounds like carefully footnoted hate or seemingly authoritative bile.
:: Here's the Monster! ::
Such a characterisation of NARTH is, in some cases, incorrect. NARTH, as far as DREADNOUGHT can tell, is helmed by people who actually care about SSA men and women. These doctors appear to work hard to ensure, often at great professional risk, that an enlightened approach to human sexuality guides the medical and other health professions. However, they don't immediately endear themselves to Catholics and others with releases like this.^
:: And, He's Not so Frightening After All ::
To combat confusion and re-iterate the Catholic position on these issues, DREADNOUGHT wrote in response:
DREADNOUGHTER,
...I'm not personally familiar with the NARTH crowd. I am not a scientist. I'm not a doctor of medicine. I'm not even a psychologist/psychiatrist. Thus, I don't have much of substance to say about what attempts to be - ostensibly - a medical/scientific argument.
I will say, however, that even general standards of political or philosophical debate hold that a footnote referencing a paper published by a think tank or other body set up to push what amounts to a political agenda (i.e., NARTH) is less convincing than a footnote referencing a paper published by an independent researcher. An author who cites himself as an authority must make sure his earlier research is unimpeachable or insightful indeed before relying on a majority of self-references.
Thus, an open-letter endorsing NARTH's position that is signed almost exclusively by individuals who belong to NARTH is a bit like DREADNOUGHT's glowing review of DREADNOUGHT. That is, not very seemly.
Similarly, if the authors were primarily concerned with the plight of SSA men and women, why waste so much effort on a pamphlet written such that it reads like an argument for why homoactivists or medical practitioners who disagree with NARTH are wrong and not enough like an argument for why SSA men and women need NARTH's help/ideas? I am sure those involved are trying to do good work, but I didn't find this terribly convincing and/or illuminating and if it failed to move me, then it is not going to sway others who are hostile to the truth about human sexuality.
I'm also not that keen on merely psychological/medical prescriptions or treatments for SSA. They seem to me to bypass the wider issues, hoping for something like a pill or a session that might 'cure' something that has not just emotional or psychic aspects, but deep spiritual, philosophical and political aetiologies/meanings/ramifications.
Best wishes,
- DREADNOUGHT
:: The Upshot ::
One lives chastity. That which demands chastity, namely the Church in the name of God's law of love, would not be satisfied with a short cut or a merely therapeutic response. It is not appropriate or indeed terribly Christian, to attempt to merely program the good or else induce it via drug or other therapies. NARTH-endorsed approaches might indeed prove useful for some, let us pray they do, but nothing means they must be good per se, nor that Catholics who are same sex attracted or otherwise inclined must find NARTH's arguments or positions immediately convincing and/or authoritative.
:: Resources ::
- DREADNOUGHT on 'curing' homosexuality;
- DREADNOUGHT on Fr Fessio, 'gay babies' and the only Vatican-approved context in which homosexuality can be called a 'disorder'; and
- DREADNOUGHT on what the Catechism really says about homosexuality, homogenital acts and chastity.
* (Catechism of the Catholic Church, see 2357-2359).^ (The open letter did not originate on MercatorNet, it was re-posted there. Here is what DREADNOUGHT thinks of Opus Dei).
by DREADNOUGHT at 1:58:00 AM
<< Home