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


http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/c...tent/short/56/10/887


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


http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/...s_mental_health.html


http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/archives.html


"To understand why homosexuality is linked with psychopathology, the author calls for more research--particularly, research that is free of politicization and that does not avoid exploring unpopular hypotheses."

This is such a delicate, inflammatory subject, yet is so ripe for PC exclusionary vendetta, along with huge implications for social and legal policy reform, that it must be be reconsidered, which seems to be taking place, although my guess is that it will be difficult to acquire research funds to pursue a possible recanting of the DSM ruling that removed homosexuality as a category of psychopathology back in the late 70's.

Wow, those are some hot-potatoes, w.c.

From the 3rd link:

quote:

The factors that determined the decision of the APA to delete homosexuality from DSM-II were summarized as follows:

1. Gay activists had a profound influence on psychiatric thinking.

2. A sincere belief was held by liberal-minded and compassionate psychiatrists that listing homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder supported and reinforced prejudice against homosexuals. Removal of the term from the diagnostic manual was viewed as a humane, progressive act.

3. There was an acceptance of new criteria to define psychiatric conditions. Only those disorders that caused a patient to suffer or that resulted in adjustment problems were thought to be appropriate for inclusion in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.

I suspected as much, only there it is, now, stated outright.

I think this issue is related to the one on gay marriage (other thread on this forum), but the two are separate. Even if it could be demonstrated that homosexuality was perfectly natural and life-giving for most who have such orientation, one could oppose gay marriage for reasons pertaining more to the state's investment in supporting marriage because of children.

At any rate, the above links certainly help one understand why the Catholic hierarchy is trying to weed out of the seminaries those who actively support a gay lifestyle. No doubt, hundreds of millions of dollars worth of lawsuits are also motivating this new policy.

Some discussion of the topic over at First Things,
which I haven't visited often enough of late:

http://www.firstthings.com/ caritas, mm

John Richard Neuhaus is a good guy (er, priest), for sure. He'll give you the more conservative ethical perspective, which is not exactly the same as an evaluation of psychopathology.

One of the things that makes the psychopathology label hard to stick is that there are apparently many examples where homosexual relationships are seemingly life-giving for the couple. Granted the large number of promiscuous, sex-preoccupied relationships; still, there are those others which do not seem to give evidence of pathologies any more than do heterosexual relationships of a similar character.

-----

Edit. - forgot to add that one way to try to get at what might be called "natural" for human sexuality would be to see how things go for hunter-gatherer populations (Spiral Dynamics Beige cultures). The little research I've done on this shows them to be unabashedly hetero-oriented, at least with respect to "marriage." Men with homosexual orientations were apparently recognized, but were often found in roles like the shaman, or in other roles that were not so identified with hunting and war-making.

Phil:

My sense, from knowing homosexuals over the years, is that there is a small percentage of that group whose orientation may be due mainly to genetic variation. But otherwise, in the small number of homosexual couples I've met, there is a kind of personality disorder that seems prevalent, almost characterizing the relationship. That can be said of many hetero relationships, but from the small sample I'm drawing on, among gays it seems far more frequent. I can only remember meeting one gay man who was emotionally mature and not the least bit affected with "gayness." Most everyone else seemed stuck back in adolescense.


The three kids I grew up with who were gay had fathers who were cold and brutal, with a rather narcissistic attachment to their mothers (Mamma's boys). Of course, most of the kids I grew up with were severely abused and hetero, but these tended to emulate their hard-ass fathers, whereas my gay peers showed feminine characteristics beginning, it seems, during puberty (A sign of primary genetic influence? or the way the disturbed early attachment relationship manifested in families where mothers were emotionally incestuous and abusive and fathers cold and brutal?).

The research cited in the initial post, which will no doubt meet with limited funding, must really take up what you are describing as the apparent exception: the examples of gay relationships that are life-giving and truly emotionally mature. Large, random samples are necessary to compare hetero and gay groups in order not to over-represent psychopathology among the latter.

As for gays in tribal cultures being somehow more prone to shamanism, I think that is probably more an artifact of post-modern wishful thinking, since the vast majority of shamans were likely hetero. Although if celbacy was a pre-condition of a tribes' shamanism, then that would have been a good way to create acceptable structure for such rarities.

As for the Vatican's take on this, the church really does embarrass itself with such attempts to legislate morality. Again, I draw upon my own limited experience, but most of the priests I've met, maybe upwards of 80%, seem quite immature, whether gay or hetero. IMO, it is simply impossible to understand sexuality without having sex. Sorry, but I don't buy into the PC notion that one's Eros is familiar enough to create empathy re: that unique bond. Of course, physical intercourse alone isn't enough either, but it is at least implied. So not that married preists are bound to be more mature, but there is a better chance of them having mature empathetic ability, especially when most of the Vatican is populated with clergy who were recruited from local high schools.

Someone who took notice of the First Things piece:

http://www.andrewsullivan.com

Another Andrew, author of 30 or so books on mysticism:

http://www.andrewharvey.net/

Rajneesh and others have said that gay people cannot meditate. Perhaps Harvey is an exception.
I picked up "Son of Man" out of the discount pile
and my mouth dropped open when I saw the picture of he and his husband on the inside flap! England
goes gay marriage this month, so perhaps he'll get another slice of gay wedding cake...

I've read a few of Nouwen's books and understand that he may have been gay in orientation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Nouwen

If it's just a rumour, please let me know. I'm not 100% sure about it.

caritas,

mm <*))))><

All good points, gents, to which I haven't much to add. I do think it makes a difference if one enters priesthood or religious life a little later -- say in the early to late 20s, after one has had an opportunity to grapple with some of the early issues pertaining to sexual identity. Such individuals will still have their struggles, but at least they'll better understand what they're dealing with. Happily, most vocations to priesthood and religious life do seem to be coming a little later these days.

One issue that the Catholic Church has yet to admit it has is the assumption that most of its candidates for priesthood actually have a calling to celibacy. My impression is that the vast majority simply do not have this calling, although many may well have a calling to the priesthood. If homosexuality is mostly pathological, then the potential for conflict is even greater; however, the exclusion of sexual life among the priesthood is, imo, symbolic of the Vatican's ineptitude when it comes to the psychology of human experience.

A thought/question:

If the church were to attempt closing holy orders to homosexuals, to what extent would that resolve the pedophilia problem? It seems clear that the vast majority of gays aren't prone to this abusiveness, and yet the majority of pedophiles appear to be gay. One hears much less about priests abusing girls and young women.

I should make it clear that I'm not of the opinion that homosexuality is evil, even were to be found a form of psychopathology in most folks. However, the PC crowd won't let you even bring this subject up without declaring an ACLU-driven witch hunt.

St. Paul was a man of his time, informed by his Jewish faith and driven to polarize with homosexual-friendly Roman paganism, so I wouldn't have expected him to have had different views. So while not evil, if homosexuality is mostly psychopathologically-driven, is it of a kind or degree of distortion that would make homosexuals as a group more unfit for the priesthood than the average dysfunctional straight clergy?

My guess is that much of homosexuality, to the degree that it arises psychopathologically, may show signs of personality disorder at its root. Whether gay or straight, these folks probably should be kept out of the priesthood, since such character disorders severely diminish the pastoral capacity. But if there were a retro-active term for this distinction, the Vatican would probably have to start hiring off the street.

You must be giving them quite a run for their money in your RCIA class, w.c.

One issue that the Catholic Church has yet to admit it has is the assumption that most of its candidates for priesthood actually have a calling to celibacy. My impression is that the vast majority simply do not have this calling, although many may well have a calling to the priesthood.

That's a tough one, w.c. I don't know too many people -- even lifetime singles -- who would say they have a "calling" to celibacy. I realize this thread is about psychological issues, but it's difficult to leave out the moral, spiritual and theological levels. So the calling to priesthood as understood in Catholicism entails a giving oneself fully to Christ for the sake of his Church. This includes one's sexuality and its powerful energies, which, ideally, become transformed in the service of higher consciousness (Christ's becoming a "eunich" for the sake of the reign of God). That's what's supposed to happen. Of course, that doesn't mean one doesn't have struggles, but the testimony of Saints and mystics is that while it's not easy, celibacy can indeed contribute to a deeper relationship with God.

Interestingly, the Catherine of Siena Institute refers to a charism or spiritual gift of celibacy, noting the following:

quote:

Celibacy refers to the state of those who never marry and is a discipline freely undertaken by those who answer the call to religious life or to the priesthood in the Western Church. Not every priest or religious who is living the discipline of celibacy has the charism of celibacy. Those who do not have a charism of celibacy are able to live the discipline of celibacy as a Christian role for which God will provide the grace necessary. Some lay Christians have a charism of celibacy which they live joyfully although they may never take a vow of celibacy.

The charism of celibacy never stands on its own. Christians with this gift are being "freed up" for something else. Since the life of a celibate is not shaped nearly so much by the demands of family life, there is a greater need and freedom to shape one's life according to one's charisms and call or vocation. The discernment of God's call and overall life direction is of critical importance for someone with the gift of celibacy.

I know priests and religious who apparently have this charism. Celibacy is not for them a great struggle, although they do have their "times." Rather, they seem to experience life more fully and are grateful to be so free to give themselves without the obligations of marriage and family.

Of course, none of this is considering the more esoteric dimensions of energy transmutation as described in Buddhist, Hindu and Taoist disciplines, which extol celibacy for very different reasons -- mostly in the interest of facilitating the emergence of higher states of consciousness. Surely that awareness is there in Christendom as well, though it is scarcely mentioned in any teachings and the "mechanics" of transmutation are hardly known or understood.

Posted by <concerned> on another thread, which has been closed.

-----

I've been reading over your thread about the psychopathology of homosexuality and would like to add a few items of interest.

As I've read, the percentage of homosexuals in the general population is approximately 10%. In a given group of 1000 heterosexual men and 1000 homosexual men, there will be a greater number of pedophiles in the homosexual group. If there were no connection between homosexuality and pedophilia, then why would this correlation exist?

The work of journalist Jason Berry, the work of
sexual abuse survivor advocate Father Tom Doyle, and the work of the late Dr. Michael Peterson (himself a gay priest) all address various aspects of this issue.

It is an extremely difficult and complex issue and to try to reduce it to civil rights, issues of tolerance/intolerance, and bigotry are simplistic
and antagonistic.

Does a gay subculture exist? You betcha!
The question is "why?" Is the sole purpose of this subculture to perform character assinations on anyone who disagrees with their position? To use covert psychological techniques and undercover activists to brainwash others? To immediately infer and imply that anyone who doesn't see things their way is prejudice and bigoted? Or does the subculture exist as a means of protection of a group that has been hated and persecuted throughout the ages?

Power seems to be the issue here. Persecuted groups often see power as 'power over' others.
The persecuted becomes the persecutor. The gays who were persecuted yesterday become the ones
who persecute today. And God help us if anyone disagrees with them on any issue.

The naive and uninformed like to reduce this to an
easy to solve civil rights issue. But there is much more at stake here. A subculture that discredits, intimidates, violates, and, then, cries "Victim" should be thoroughly studied and
investigated. The lives of our children are at stake.

<concerned>,

Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful input.
Yes, we're all in this together and it's a town hall
issue of concern for many, and a complicated moral and social issue as well.

Alfred Kinsey comes to mind:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Kinsey

A "concerned" gay history POV:

http://www.gayhistory.com/rev2/factfiles/ff1948.htm

"Concerned" Women for America POV:

http://www.cwfa.org/kinsey.asp

Interesting synchronicity happening, I just watched a gay man/transvestite being beat up outside a bar in a locally produced film about teenage suicide. It was actually one of the other characters that attempted suicide, but may have well been the gay kid. I can see why you are concerned. There is a "power over" paradigm involved here, but I am still wary of the "power over" paradigm of any insatiable power lobby. The 10% figure has been used to gain power for a half a century, and it may be time to lay it to rest.

I also read a book by Henri Nouwen last night, and
can now say with confidence that I have found a
gay priest whom I admire and seek to emulate in many ways. I prayed about this issue last night
and perhaps the prayer is being answered. I seek the truth, and it is elusive...

The gays persecuting gays is an interesting angle,
which I believe has some validity. There was a speechwriter for Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson
who wrote a book called Stranger at the Gate about
ten or fifteen years ago. They never suspected...
I do feel that the argument is being used to intimidate the opposition into silence. Not every
"concerned" Christian is a bigot, homophobe, or closeted homosexual, though I suppose many are.

caritas, mm <*))))><

I was thinking about real power, and where it comes from, and where rights come from, the good, the true
and the beautiful, and what sometimes causes one to
work out their salvation with fear and trembling.

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for an image made like unto corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonoured among themselves.

They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever, Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural relation into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and recieving in their own body that recompense of their own error that was due.

Even as they refused to have God in their knowledge--God gave them up to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, coveteousness, maliciousness,; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity,; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unmerciful.

Knowing the ordinance of God, that they which practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also consent with them that practice them." Romans 1: 22-32 (Apostle Paul)

The naive and uninformed like to reduce this to an
easy to solve civil rights issue. But there is much more at stake here. A subculture that discredits, intimidates, violates, and, then, cries "Victim" should be thoroughly studied and
investigated. The lives of our children are at stake.

I think that's a very good suggestion from "concerned," and applies to any subculture (feminists, Blacks, Hispanics, evangelical Christians, etc.)

MM, I have also heard that Nouwen was gay. So is Daniel Helminiak, whose work on spiritual perspectives I greatly admire, as you know. Re. the issue of pathology/gayness, however, one could easily argue that there have been (and still are) brilliant and even holy schizophrenics, manic-depressives, alcoholics, etc. None of these groups are advocating for an open and active practicing of their pathology, and so that makes them a different kind of sub-culture than gays, who do not even view their situation as pathological, but as natural and deserving of public acceptance and support. Of course, one could argue that schizophrenia, manic-depression and alcoholism are also "natural," but no one with these pathologies would advocate its free and open expression as something that would be for the common good or even the good of their group.

So there is obviously something different about the issue of homosexuality that sets it apart from other psychopathologies -- if, that is, one is even willing to concede that it is such, as the thread topic questions.

Politics and Bars

quote:

Your disco doesn�t need you
Booze and cruise will make you fat
Frustration and disappointment
Will make you ugly on top of that
So where o where in the world of the gay
Is it really at?
We claimed our rights, our equality
Now we can marry and adopt a baby
But is the tonic we really need?
Politics don�t set you free.
We need love, we need friendship
A community ever growing
Being here for each other, knowing you�re my brother.
We need light, we need magic
A magnificent inner knowing
Building love together, preparing for forever.
For aren�t we more than who we shag
And is there a meaning behind leather and drag?
And when we look beyond the scene
Will we discover a bigger dream?
And why do we have to be content
With clubs and drugs that are surely hell bent?
And when comes the day we reach for the stars
Finding out there�s more to us than politics and bars?
We�re the disco children
But we dance in the stars
There�s more to us than politics and bars.
We stand up for rights
But have me misread our lights?
There�s more to us than sex and drug nights.
Get together in fields
Find pleasure in woods
Sail down life�s streams
Feel the sun.
Dance under the stars
Draw down the moon
Spin round the fire
Celebrate.
We are life�s children gay
Born to love, dance and play
If we get lost in the mainstream
We must refind the Way
If our minds are polluted
Our hearts battered and bruised
We must seek our own healing
& no more be confused
For our minds are creative
And our hearts can love all
We are the healers
And we have been called.
Open our hearts
Reach for the stars
There�s more to us
Than politics and bars

Normally, I hate poetry. And I think gay culture is pretentious and silly. But this poem shows someone clearly seeking something outside of narcissism, past nihilism, and above sex and materialism.

We stand up for rights
But have me misread our lights?

Oh, indeed someone has misread their lights. But such is the inherent trouble one sows when one tries to promote the idea that one�s sexual orientation doesn�t matter�and then goes about practically eradicating every single other human characterististic except sexual orientation in terms of how one defines oneself.

Pathological? I would say gay culture and attitudes certainly can be. Homosexuality itself? Depends. It depends on whether, frankly, it freeks out the rest of the culture. It it was accepted as normal by the rest of the culture then it seems unlikely it would be any more harmful than the many other human oddities that make up the human race.

A good reflection on the Vatican's new policy re. homosexuality and seminarians.
- http://www.nationalreview.com/...ouza200512080827.asp

quote:

The Church does not believe that sexual appetites constitute the whole of a personality. Indeed, the Church never officially uses the expansive term "gay" or "homosexuals", but rather the more unwieldy formulation "persons with homosexual tendencies" or "homosexual persons." The focus is on the person, not the appetite. Sexuality is important, but it is not everything. It is does not constitute an identity.

Kind of resonates with Brad's points above. (Welcome back; glad to hear you're feeling better.)

"The focus is on the person, not the appetite."

Some of the complexity of this issue revolves around that very concept. The person. Yet, the person exists in a context and, in some subgroups, the person is totally subsumed in this larger context. Pope Benedict seems to be addressing this issue.

Some subcultures (Phil, you named several.) or groups within those subcultures have, over time, developed exclusionary societies of their own which harass anyone who is not in full agreement
with their platform.

These groups often use the subtle manipulative techniques of terrorists to have power over the outsider. For example, distortion of facts and deliberate attempts at misleading the other seem to be important modes of control.

Others include: manipulation of the media (primarily running stories in favor of their position in media highly influenced by their
peers), scattering tiny grains of truth in among the chaff of lies and distortions in order to confuse, targeting specific individuals who refuse to promote their agendas in order to destroy their credibility and reputation, using their peer influence in many vocational areas in order to orchestrate a concerted attack on the individual,
using peers in attempts to 'shout down' anyone who disagrees via the internet or actual offline situations, deliberately misreading and misinterpreting events or written text
and later acting apologetic about the 'mistake',
using spyware on computers in an attempt to glean
information later used for humiliation and character assination, violating others by taking them as psychological hostages, and taking events and stories out of context in an effort to exert control and power over others.

A person can be deeply sympathetic towards the horror done to gay man, Matt Shepherd, yet, still
not be sympathetic to the demands of some of the activists in the gay community, especially those who actively use such techniques in efforts to manipulate and control.

Pope Benedict seems to be aware of this and is trying to find a way to diffuse the control of
these modern day thugs over the priesthood.

<concerned>,

"Thugs" is a very good word for Matthew Shepherd's attackers, who apparently were part of a culture of
crime to begin with, predators seeking to rob someone vulnerable. The gay issue appears to have been inflated by many songs and films about the incident, which like the Columbine High School shootings has been used by left and right to make their points.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard

I think you may be on to something about mind control and it's place in shaping politics, and I'm interested to see how much we find out.

Ten words beginning with "I" noticed on ten front windows of a public relations firm:

Ignite, Innovate, Impress, Illuminate, Intrigue, Investigate, Inspire, Instigate, Identify, Illustrate.

caritas,

mm <*))))><

A person can be deeply sympathetic towards the horror done to gay man, Matt Shepherd, yet, still not be sympathetic to the demands of some of the activists in the gay community, especially those who actively use such techniques in efforts to manipulate and control.

Pope Benedict seems to be aware of this and is trying to find a way to diffuse the control of these modern day thugs over the priesthood.

You�ll win no Nobel Prize for saying that, Concerned Catholic, but I think you have precisely outlined the situation. What person of good intent isn�t torn by their desire to defeat bigotry, even regarding acts they may not like or understand? But at the same time, how can one be expected to accept and adopt the homosexual agenda as advocated? In essence, whose bigotry should we adopt? Are these our only choices?

The homosexual movement, much like the environmental movement, has become radicalized by extremists who are quite bigoted themselves. It is entirely possible to, say, be for safeguarding the environment and to be 100% against the ideology of either Greenpeace or the Sierra Club. Good luck to the Pope. In any walk of life -- whether in business, government or religion � it takes an enormous amount of effort, eloquence, and patience to calmly, rationally, and reasonably rebut that which can in an instant fall out of the mouth of a zealot. But it is work worth doing.

Thank you, Phil. Yes. Feeling much better.

In the movie, Dead Man Walking, a criminal who has
already destroyed life tries to pull Sister Helen Prejean into
believing in his skewed conceptual framework. Sister,however, realizes this and refuses to accompany him.

In this same way, Pope Benedict, while realizing the
difficult circumstances of some gays, also realizes
the utter devastation that can be wrought by the
dominance of this subculture in the priesthood.

Priests have traditionally held the trust of their
respective communities. However, when their loyalty
to a subculture exists, that loyalty may become the
driving force in their lives and all other
responsibilities can be forsaken. The subculture may
become the idol. The responsibilities to the wider
community may be forgotten. "Marriages" (emotional or
otherwise) which already exist to other men may become
the basis of their lives rather than a solitary
witness to Christ. The connection to the subculture
may produce a misguided loyalty that devastates an
entire family or an entire community. The subculture
(even when it uses the previously mentioned
techniques) becomes the people to be protected and
promoted at the expense of all others.

To ignore these concerns or to try to equate them with
the concerns of a heterosexual priesthood is folly.

fwiw, concerned, I don't think too many priests are more committed to the gay subculture than they are to the duties of their ministry and the teachings of their faith tradition.

You've made your point about the existence of an influential gay subculture, however, which, for me, means that citizens need to be aware of this issue (along with the influence of other subcultures, as noted above). The thread topic is about whether or not homosexuality is pathological, and I don't think the fact of a gay subculture sheds any light on that question.