DREADCLARITY: On NARTH, Courage, And Why DREADNOUGHT Cannot Recommend "Reparative Therapy" - The Catholic Teaching On Human Sexuality / Homosexuality

[UPDATE] In a new, timely intervention in ZENIT, the former president of NARTH indirectly clarifies the claims DREADNOUGHT has made about the links between NARTH / "reparative therapy" and Courage International. The former president confirms, indeed, that NARTH is a "non-religious" organisation. Curiously, however - and as DREADNOUGHTERS might have predicted - he then says:  

"So when a 15-year-old boy goes to a priest and says, 'Father I have these feelings, I have these temptations,' that priest should say, 'you have a choice; if you don't want to be gay there are things that you can do...Nicolosi said."

As DREADNOUGHT has objected (and this interview demonstrates), NARTH's impoverished, secular view of "sexual orientation", and its "reparative therapies" are being recommended - via elements within the Courage leadership - for use by Catholic priests (perhaps even, given the context, recommended for use in the confessional).

Further, there appears to be no distinction in the NARTH president's formulation between inclinations or "temptations" (which are "objectively" wrong) to homogenital acts (which are "intrinsically" wrong) and those "feelings" which might otherwise be experienced by same sex attracted individuals (same sex friendship, love, happiness in male company). There is also the sense, against the Catholic teaching on human sexuality and probably borrowed from the language of homoactivism, that one's "feelings" or "temptations" are constitutive - that one might "be gay", rather than merely same sex attracted at any given time. What is unique to NARTH is the sense that simply being "gay" (or, translated into Catholic language, simply experiencing same sex attractions) is pathological - and, perhaps by extension, sinful per se. This is what happens when the moral distinctions are forgotten. They are absolutely central to the Catholic teaching on human sexuality. They are very important to same sex attracted Catholics. When missing them, or obscuring them, NARTH approaches must stray from orthodoxy. 

Even if the boy in the example experienced "temptations" to homogenital acts, then, he need not complain of "being gay" or "feeling gay", rather he need only confess to sinning (on the properly Catholic view), like anyone else, and only if he has willfully sinned - by entertaining sinful thoughts, for instance, or by willfully participating in homogential acts. Only these acts are homosexual / (or more precisely) homogenital. He is, himself, simply male, Catholic, a penitent, etc. Indeed, the Catechism dictates, he must be "accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity".

Where he merely experiences same sex attraction, a need to be close to another male, or to share a loving friendship, it would certainly seem that the Catechism exhortation to charity, alongside the teaching that every "sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided" would make it imprudent (at the very least) for priests to recommend that he seek out "reparative therapy". Certainly, where a priest urges only same sex attracted individuals to seek out "reparative therapy", this might constitute that "unjust discrimination" which is prohibited in Catholic teaching. 

DREADNOUGHT must ask again, then, what an obviously and avowedly "non-religious" (non-Catholic, for-profit)^ organisation is doing telling priests what to say to same sex attracted young men? Why should a good, holy priest credit the former NARTH president's secular claims and recommend, without caveat, the anecdotally disturbing cluster of phenomena, the professionally doubted method called "reparative therapy"? Is it prudent for confessors to act as secular mental health counsellors, or to take their cues from the same? Why is Courage, an organisation attempting to establish itself as an apostolate, as an official organ of the Catholic Church, so closely linked with the founders and leaders of NARTH? On the DREADNOUGHTERS Facebook Group we have asked: "Does Courage Have A NARTH Problem?" The answer is becoming clearer, and it appears to be yes.

[My thanks to the DREADNOUGHTER who forwarded the ZENIT article]. 

:: A History ::

For some time, DREADNOUGHT has felt uneasy about the (relatively minor, but persistent) influence of NARTH on Catholic pastoral responses to same sex attraction. I have always resisted recommending the quasi-psychological / psychiatric methods adopted by some same sex attracted individuals. I have written previously of my concerns about purely secular, materialist responses to the moral, and religious issues raised by same sex attraction, and I have attempted to set out how so-called “reparative therapy” techniques bear upon the properly Catholic teaching on human sexuality:

“… 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.”

Further, DREADNOUGHT has explained that while:

“NARTH-endorsed approaches might indeed prove useful for some, let us pray they do…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.”

In light of recent developments, however, a more detailed engagement might be prudent.

:: An Invitation ::

Earlier this year, and after DREADNOUGHT had made a number of public statements further to the same effect (NARTH is not a Catholic body, its statements are not binding, I have been told repeatedly by DREADNOUGHTERS that “reparative therapy” methods cause great discomfort, where they do not damage young people) I was invited to speak at a conference organized by a chapter of Courage.

Courage, as many DREADNOUGHTERS will know, is an apostolate set up by Terence Cardinal Cooke, and co-founded by Fathers John Harvey, and Benedict Groeschel. Unlike NARTH, Courage has obtained – in various dioceses – varying degrees of official acceptance (although the apostolate is still mostly concentrated in specific areas in the United States). Some same sex attracted Catholics are sent to Courage, or asked to consult Courage, by serious, holy priests who want them to flourish, and grow in the faith.

DREADNOUGHT is not a member of Courage, and while I have been in contact with members at various levels, I have had no official contact with the Courage founders. It came as some surprise, then, to be invited to speak at this Courage conference in Australia, an event apparently being arranged such that DREADNOUGHT and the other speakers would appear alongside the new Courage director Father Paul Check. While I am wary of statements which conflate same sex attraction with a medical pathology / mental disorder, and Father Check has said that "[p]eople are relieved to know the condition [same sex attraction] is both treatable and preventable", I told the organisers that I would be delighted to discuss the Catholic teaching on human sexuality, and agreed in principle to appear.

:: A Thoughtful Reply ::

In the course of planning for the event, however, I asked the organisers for a clarification. I wanted assurances, I told them, that the event would not be used to promote so-called “reparative therapy” techniques, or any other methods that were not properly Catholic (i.e., recommendations for activities not directly implicated in the Catholic moral teaching on human sexuality). After some very genuine, very thoughtful replies, (for which I thank them) the organisers offered that while the conference would be in line with the general Courage goals (goals that are otherwise solidly Catholic), at least one “reparative therapist” would be featured, and that this was in line with the pastoral posture of Courage worldwide.

In good faith, DREADNOUGHT declined the invitation and all of the attendant benefits.

:: An Explanation ::

Now I want to state publicly why I declined the invitation. The reasons are four:

1. “Reparative therapy”, both what I have seen of it vicariously, and what I have managed to read of it, is – as DREADNOUGHT has repeatedly written – extra-religious. It denotes a cluster of secular, quasi-psychological / psychiatric approaches, most of which have been rejected by medical and mental health experts.* It is not, therefore, properly within the ambit of the Catholic teaching on human sexuality, and it is not a going concern in mainstream medical culture. The average medical doctor will never ask same sex attracted patients to see a “reparative therapist”, and the Church will never compel an otherwise good Catholic to seek a purely behaviouristic, or therapeutic treatment for his various inclinations toward sin. To do so, the Church would have to teach that some efforts at sanctity are never enough, as though same sex attracted men and women in particular - alone among all creation - are somehow “damaged”, and damaged in some way that cannot be met by those methods the Church recommends to any man for sanctity: good deeds, prayer, fasting, and mortification - with the help of grace.  She will never so teach. 

2. A significant number of DREADNOUGHTERS, certainly many more than speak in favour, have spoken against “reparative therapy”, and allied “ex-gay” approaches. Indeed, only two DREADNOUGHTERS out of thousands have ever recommended the treatment. Against their, to be frank, fairly unconvincing – and at times deeply uncharitable - testimony, DREADNOUGHT must set all of the other voices. Many of these have been compelling. One young woman, and two young men told me of their particular suffering after the "reparative therapy", recounting experiences so disturbing and so extreme that they eventually attempted suicide.

3. DREADNOUGHT rejects the equation of same sex attraction at first instance with a mental disorder, however currently defined. As I have written previously, the “disordered” in “intrinsically disordered” borrows from the nomenclature of normative morality. It refers to homogenital acts. Inclinations to homogenital acts are described, indeed, as "objectively disordered", but this describes the moral nature of that specific inclination (i.e., an inclination to always wrong acts is always, objectively, wrong in itself). That says nothing of the subjective (in the sense of particular) moral status of the person who passively experiences disordered inclinations (unwilled), except that such people "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity" - and it does not condemn those who experience otherwise morally neutral (or even commendable) inclinations (e.g., to same sex friendship). At least inasmuch as same sex attracted individuals experience inclinations that are unwilled / unbidden, and / or not properly described as "objectively disordered", they are not implicated in the Catholic teaching against homogenital acts. This is unambiguous in Catholic thought. Efforts to describe same sex attraction per se as merely (or predominantly) a mental disorder, then, miss out on this rich tradition. They may fail to distinguish between homogenital acts (intrinsically wrong), inclinations to homogenital acts (objectively wrong), and other inclinations (otherwise morally neutral, or else commendable) and they therefore risk stigmatising same sex attracted individuals. Further, no authoritative Catholic document on human sexuality speaks of same sex attraction as a mental (psychological / psychiatric) disorder. Any material that does is, therefore, and necessarily, outside orthodoxy. At best, it is extra-religious. Indeed, it is possible that some of this material will conflict with Catholic teaching. Finally, Catholics believe that all men are born into a disordered reality. We believe that if any man is in need of “repair”, all men are properly understood to need such repair. It makes no sense to single out all same sex attracted individuals, then, for morally-motivated "reparative therapy" except in the context of anecdotally unfortunate, and professionally disavowed, secular, and historical attempts to program sexual "conversion". While the genesis of same sex attraction remains – for the moment – unknown to science, it is already clear that such attempts to program virtue, by behaviouristic, genetic, or other techniques, while possibly useful for some, are not a properly Catholic concern. They are, moreover, potentially limiting (if one mistakenly seeks "reparative therapy", for instance, for one's inclinations, but does not go to confession after performing homogenital acts) and they must fall short of the Catholic understanding of human sexuality, a teaching that seeks to fashion fully integrated human beings for flourishing, in line with a faith that demands a total conversion, not just behavioristic tinkering about the edges of the psyche.

4. Too often, good people associated with Courage allow themselves to be associated with such “reparative therapy” techniques and boosters. Just as the conference DREADNOUGHT could not in good faith attend was to feature a “reparative therapist”, the 2009 Courage conference will feature the former president of NARTH. While the serious, orthodox objections to “reparative therapy” in 1 – 3 remain unanswered, Courage should not associate with NARTH. While it does so, it will continue to alarm DREADNOUGHT, and many other same sex attracted Catholics, indeed it will risk alienating Catholics committed to the properly Catholic teaching (and only the Catholic teaching) on human sexuality. Many of us would otherwise embrace the apostolate, and DREADNOUGHT supports its worthy goals.

In various discussions with Courage members, and NARTH collaborators, these concerns have never been quieted. I offer this public statement as a self-explanation, then, DREADNOUGHTERS now have some way to explain my historical reticence in recommending Courage (and you will know now why I have always distanced myself from NARTH), but I also offer the statement as a challenge.

:: The Upshot ::

As already stated, many good people, many holy priests recommend Courage – and some recommend “reparative therapy”. DREADNOUGHT hopes that this post (offered respectfully and obediently to ordinaries and superiors everywhere, and charitably to fellow Catholics associated with Courage and, to a lesser extent, NARTH), will help to demonstrate why such recommendations can no longer go unqualified. While Courage operates, at an official and / or pastoral level, as though the goals, methods, and results of NARTH and “reparative therapy” treatments were always consistent with and / or essential to the properly Catholic teaching on human sexuality, DREADNOUGHT cannot recommend its efforts. Rather, NARTH and its methods should be separated from Courage, officially and on the ground, and any associated movements and phenomena described appropriately - as a professionally doubted, often anecdotally disturbing, completely secular response to same sex attraction, one no good Catholic should feel obligated to heed, certainly not one the Church always and everywhere endorses.

* (Experts whose apparently professional statements are themselves problematic / political).

^ (DREADNOUGHTERS, both those pro- and anti-"reparative therapy", have written of the high cost of the treatment).