Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex

• Home
• About this Blog
• Sex And Morality
• Theology
• Liturgical Links
• Health Resources
• John Paul II's Theology of the Body

July 23, 2005

20 Comments

1. Some may argue that the reason behind the psychological problems of homosexuals is that they are made to feel guilty about their lifestyle and are not generally accepted by society.

   Comment by Anonymous — July 24, 2005 @ 10:26 am

2. There may be feelings of confusion, anger, and resentment in those who do not know why they feel the way they do. We can try to rationalize our actions, but deep down inside of ourselves, we know what is right and wrong, and most of us will end up being tormented by our decisions.

   Comment by Anonymous — July 24, 2005 @ 10:35 am

3. Anon #1,

   Actually many do argue that is the reason for all their psychological problems. But notice that many of these studies are conducted in the most pro-homosexual agenda locations possible (e.g. the Netherlands, San Francisco, etc.). Who is it today that makes them feel guilty that the gay community actually listens to? It is certainly not the popular press/media where it is celebrated or many of the mainstream Protestant religions, or sad to say, all too many dissenting Catholics (even many priests and some bishops).
   This same argument can be made for just about anything for which there is broad disagreement in which case we would have a society of neurotics and we would see no difference between practicing homosexuals and the rest of society. No, Anon #2 has the better explanation; ask recovering homosexuals or ask mothers who have aborted their babies and are now paying the emotional/spiritual price.

   Notice that the psychological issue is usually the redherring which is brought up. If one looks at the common sense issue of what sex is for and the medical issues which show the problems associated with sexual copulation outside of what nature intends, then you can see the entire picture fits well together with what the Church teaches. We cannot break the laws of nature; however, when we violate them it eventually is we who are broken.

   Comment by David — July 24, 2005 @ 12:50 pm

4. [...] LifeSiteNews has an article describing the disgusting demand of a same-sex intercourse activist group to lower the legal age for anal sex in Canada from 18 to 16. Why? Equal rights of course. The age for consensual vaginal sex is now 14 but the conservative government is trying to increase the age to 16. The age for consensual anal sex is 18. So the same-sex activist figure, hey…we want to be able to accost 16 year old boys without legal consequences. In fact, attempting to “recruit” underage boys is a well established past-time in this subculture. They call themselves chicken-hawks. [...]

   Pingback by COSMOS-LITURGY-SEX » Chicken Hawks: Lower the Legal Age for Buggery — February 15, 2006 @ 8:20 pm

5. [...] Well this assertion presupposes that “sexual orientation” is not a disorder and that same-sex households are not problematic for children. If we were to say, replace “sexual orientation” with “ephebophilia” (which by the way is as much as 620 times higher in men who engage in homosexual activities) I do believe that the “one criterion” would matter to them. However, they don’t come to the table without a response to this issue. They state: Anyone who wishes to examine the 20 years of peer-reviewed studies on the emotional, cognitive and behavioral outcomes of children of gay and lesbian parents will find not one shred of evidence that children are harmed by their parents’ sexual orientation. [...]

   Pingback by COSMOS-LITURGY-SEX » Confused in Boston — March 13, 2006 @ 3:19 pm

6. [...] If Sullivan had read the other link we provided to an earlier post, he would have had plenty more studies not associated with Cameron and Cameron, that show ephebophilia is from many times to orders of magnitude greater in men with SSA who practice homosexual sex. This is strong support for Fr. Neuhaus’ concern. [...]

   Pingback by COSMOS-LITURGY-SEX » C-L-S: “A Far-Right Catholic Website”? — March 27, 2006 @ 12:29 pm

7. In response to the earlier claim that the psychological problems of homosexuals occur in even “the most pro-homosexual agenda locations” homosexuality is still considered an anomally, an abnormal, though supported trait. Homosexuals, no matter what happens, will still have that feeling that they don’t belong when almost everything in our world is geared to heterosexuals. Thus, the increase in depression, most likely due to the tremendous stress of going against the constant force to conform, will continue.
   Now it’s my turn for some questions:
   Why add to that?
   How is the issue of homosexuality directly affecting you?
   And one last thing to chew on:
   Prejudice against someone’s sexual orientation is just as bad as racism. Back in the days of slavery and up until the civil rights movement and even now with the KKK the Bible has been used to justify racism, the same way it is being used against homsexuals today. Whatever happened to Love thy Neighbor?
   Also, have any of you thought that God is using homosexuality to fix the problem of overpopulation?
   And why does everyone have to prescribe to Christian doctrine?
   Just some things to think on.

   Comment by Zach Umsted — March 27, 2006 @ 3:56 pm

8. Homosexuals, no matter what happens, will still have that feeling that they don’t belong when almost everything in our world is geared to heterosexuals.

   And there is a reason the world is geared to heterosexuals and can never be so to those suffering from SSA. It is because fundamental human nature is male and female. There are no other “genders” in nature, simply a disorder found in a small percentage of humans and even smaller in animals.

   hus, the increase in depression, most likely due to the tremendous stress of going against the constant force to conform, will continue.

   This stress is pretty much non-existent in many European countries and several enclaves in the U.S. There is a stress, but it is an interior conflict between ones actions and the way one is made.

   Prejudice against someone’s sexual orientation is just as bad as racism.

   Here you presuppose that same sex sexual orientation is something other than a disorder without any support for your position. To describe the affective, psychological, and social ramifications of a disorder is not prejudice but simply stating empirical fact.

   Also, have any of you thought that God is using homosexuality to fix the problem of overpopulation?

   Sure, that would do it…if over population were a problem. If you want to discuss this theologically we would have to establish backgrounds and points of departure. However, there is sufficient grounds in empirical evidence and the natural law to show that SSA is a disorder so we need not bring Revelation to the table if you are not so prepared.

   And why does everyone have to prescribe to Christian doctrine?

   Who said they do? As I said above, the truth can be established from reason working and empirical evidence.

   Thanks for the thoughts. We would be happy to discuss them further if you wish.

   Whatever happened to Love thy Neighbor?

   Love is sharing the truth with others in charity. It might be convenient to ignore the truth but it is not charitable. Those suffering from SSA, those children who are accosted during their formative years, and society at large are all adversely affected. Trying to help alieviate this situation is authentic love.

   Comment by David — March 27, 2006 @ 9:23 pm

9. Wait a second here, please!

   The disorder of ephebophilia (the attraction to post pubescent children which is different from pedophilia) is significantly higher in gays (as high as 620 times higher –see first study below) than in the normal population (less than 2%).

   The first study cited, by Ray Blanchard et al. (2000), does not say this. It says: “The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2-4% of men attracted to adults prefer men; in contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys [references omitted]. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles.”

   Now, where does “620″ come from? In part, it comes, I suspect, from a glitch in the handling of special symbols. I’ve written a hyphen to mark the range “6-20,” but the original has an en dash (–), a character that sometimes vanishes (inconveniently, you might say!) when text is sent from one computer system to another.

   Moreover, Blanchard’s study compares pedophiles (attracted to children aged 14 or younger) with matched volunteer controls who self-identified as heterosexual and whom the paper assumes to be attracted to physically mature females. The paper does not study ephebophilia.

   Finally, with regard to pedophilia and its statistical association with homosexuality, the authors take pains to state, “Ordinary (teleiophilic [that is, attracted to adults]) homosexual men are no more likely to molest boys than ordinary (teleiophilic) heterosexual men are to molest girls.”

   Blanchard’s study, in other words, offers no support whatever for the stated claim.

   Comment by The Sheepcat — April 8, 2006 @ 1:55 pm

10. Sheepcat - you are right. I have modified the reference.

    You are also right, I have read only excerpts from the report but have not yet acquired it in its entirety. Perhaps you could provide me with their support for the statement:

    “Ordinary (teleiophilic [that is, attracted to adults]) homosexual men are no more likely to molest boys than ordinary (teleiophilic) heterosexual men are to molest girls.”

    Is this an assertion or do they actually perform a parallel study? From what I see of it, they do not seem to have the data in their study to make this assertion. In other words, one would have to do a large random sample of both heterosexual and practicing SSA men in order to make this claim.

    Comment by David — April 8, 2006 @ 3:29 pm

11. Thanks, David.
    It’s an assertion made in closing, “to preclude any misunderstanding of misuse of this study.” I don’t know what evidence it’s based on.

    For what this is worth, the paragraph in question, which goes to assert that homosexuality should not be considered a psychopathology, ends with a citation of Friedman, R.C. (1988) _Male Homosexuality: A Contemporary Psychoanalytic Perspective_ and Spitzer, R.L. (1981) The diagnostic status of homosexuality in DSM-III: A reformulation of the issues. _Am. J. Psychiat._ 138: 210-215, neither of which I have read. The latter is interesting of course because Spitzer, who helped remove homosexuality from the APA’s list of disorders, has recently acknowledged that some persons do experience a change in their pattern of desire from homosexual to heterosexual.

    Comment by The Sheepcat — April 8, 2006 @ 5:27 pm

12. Meanwhile, a thought or two for Zach: I used to argue along lines very similar to yours–for about a decade and a half, I did. But this “constant force to conform” doesn’t hold water as an explanation of psychological problems of homosexual persons. I was at my most miserable when my social circle consisted almost entirely of people who viewed homosexual desires and behaviour as perfectly normal, and in this experience I am hardly alone.

    Second–speaking, ahem, of loving one’s neighbour–it is both inaccurate and uncharitable to blame opposition to homosexuality on “prejudice.” One might even call such a charge prejudiced. To be sure, some people who oppose homosexuality don’t know a whole lot about it or about the people who live with it from day to day, but there are plenty of others who understand all too well what it’s all about because we’ve struggled with or acted on homosexual desires ourselves or we’ve seen the havoc homosexuality has wreaked in the lives of our loved ones. I was sexually active with men for many years and was for a time quite a gay activist. When I argue against homosexuality, it’s not out of ignorance. I hope you’ll give some good hard thought to how this could be so. My explanation in the old days was that “so-called ex-gays” and gay people who chose celibacy had to be kidding themselves. ‘Tain’t so.

    Comment by The Sheepcat — April 8, 2006 @ 6:42 pm

13. “Ray Blanchard, et al. “Fratemal Birth Order and Sexual Orientation in Pedophiles.” Archives of Sexual Behavior, Volume 29, Number 5 (2000), pages 463 to 478.”

    The authors say in the paper:

    Ordinary
    (teleiophilic) homosexual men are no more likely to molest boys than ordinary
    (teleiophilic) heterosexual men are to molest girls. Second, the causes of homosexuality
    are irrelevant to whether it should be considered a psychopathology.

    “A. Zebulon, Z.A. Silverthorne and Vernon L. Quinsey. “Sexual Partner Age Preferences of Homosexual and Heterosexual Men and Women.” Archives of Sexual Behavior, February 2000 [Volume 29, Number IJ, pages 67 to 76."

    The study analyzed the different patterns of age preference of small samples of heterosexual and homosexual men and women. The youngest stimated age of the male category for the visual stimuli was 18, youngest stimated age of the female category for the visual stimuli was 19. No children were offered as visual stimuli for the heterosexual and homosexual subjects.

    "Ray Blanchard, et. aI. “Pedophiles: Mental Retardation, Maternal Age, and Sexual Orientation.” Archives of Sexual Behavior, Volume 28, Number 2,pages 111 to 127."

    The heterosexual pedophile group analyzed were shown to be greatly attracted to females of all age categories. The bisexual pedophile group analyzed were shown to be greatly attracted to females of all age categories and were also somewhat attracted to teenage boys and boys aged 5-8. They were not attracted to adult males. The homosexual pedophile group was not aroused by images of adult or teenage females, though they were attracted to girls aged 5-11. They were greatly aroused by underage male stimuli, but not to adult male stimuli. In fact, they didn't seem to distinguish between adult males and adult and teenage females. http://img256.imageshack.us/my.php?image=imagemjj3.jpg

    In fact, the above study would contend that ordinary homosexuals were more often child predators.

    "Kurt Freund, Robin Watson and Douglas Rienzoo “Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Erotic Age Preference.” Journal of Sex Research, February 1989 [Volume 26,Number 1), pages l(J7to 117.)"

    The authors exclitly said the men who molested boys were rarely homosexual in the usual sense (that is, homosexually attracted to adult males):

    These studies show that only rarely are sex offenders against male children diagnosed as androphiles [homosexual in adult orientation] and that phallometric diagnosis of gynophilic [heterosexual in adult orientation] and androphilic volunteers almost always corresponds to their claimed erotic preference

    “W.D. Erickson, et al. “Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters.” 17 Archives of Sexual Behavior 77,83 (1988). IOJ.”

    The child molesters were asked their sex preferences, not their age preferences, and that matters a great deal (read: http://www.ipce.info/host/howitt/index.htm). A boy molester might be homosexual in that he is mostly attrated to underage boys, however, they are not homosexual, as proved by the aforementioned studies, in that he is attracted to adult males. In fact, he seems to be overall uninterested in adult men. Thus, it seems it is not true men who are attracted to adult males are more likely to molest children.

    The other studies were all authored by Freund, and, as shown previously, he’d already asserted child molesters who abuse children are rarely homosexual in adult orientation.

    Other studies that proves my point:

    “Heterosexual Interest in Homosexual Males” (Kurt Freund, M.D., 1 Ron Langevin, Ph.D., 2 Tahoma Wescom, B.A., 3 and
    Yaroslaw Zajac)

    “Bisexuality in Homosexual Pedophilia”

    “IDENTIFYING SEXUAL PREFERENCES IN INTRAFAMILIAL AND EXTRAFAMILIAL CHILD SEXUAL ABUSERS” (Roy 11. Frenzel, Reuben A. Lang)

    “Differential Sexual Responding Among Four Groups of Sexual Offenders Against Children” (William D. Murphy, 1′2 Mary R. Haynes, Susan J. Stalgaitis, l and Barry Flanagan)

    “The child molester: clinical observations” (Groth, A. Nicholas; Hobson, William F.; Gary, Thomas S)

    “Adult sexual orientation and attraction to underage persons” (Groth, A. Nicholas; Birnbaum, H Jean)

    “Sexual offenders against male children: Sexual preferences” (Marshal, W.L.; Barbaree, H.E.; Butt, Jennifer)

    “Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals” (Jenny, Carole; Roesler, Thomas A.; Poyer, Kimberly L)

    “The Discriminative Validity of a Phallometric Test for Pedophilic Interests Among Adolescent Sex Offenders Against Children” (Michael C. Seto, Martin L. Lalumi&e, and Ray Blanchard)

    My question: why are Christians so hateful? They argue they are not hateful when they say things they believe to be true, but they don’t believe what they say is true. The person who posted this entry distorted the aforementioned studies, i.e., he knows the studies, knows they don’t support his point — and then distorted in order to denigrate gay people. If that is not indicative of a hateful attitude — then what is?

    Comment by Rafa — November 20, 2007 @ 4:29 am

14. Rafa,

    The conclusions drawn by these authors are not always in accord with the data they present for a variety of reasons…much of which has to do with the reasons the author it attracted to the issue and the prevailing acceptability within the academy to publishing findings that go against the stated party line (for example, a previous APA president complained that with the current culture within the APA one could not even study such things as reparative therapy without being charged with unethical practice). The point is that they studies referenced do indeed provide support for the respective assertions even if the author(s) do not acknowledge it or even attempt to explain away the implications.

    Hate is a term that is too easily thrown about and it seems to me that the motivation is an attempt to silence disagreement. Hate is defined as the desire for evil (non-being) for something. Hate can never be directed toward a person because each person is created in the image of God. Hate toward an act is not often employed but I suppose that it can be if the act is evil in itself because evil is a privation of the good. As such, if one wants to honestly engage in discussion, he must acknowledge that there is a valid distinction between the acts and the person and that one can in fact call an act evil without hating the person engaged in the act.

    Fraternal correction for brothers who have gone astray is in fact a venerable Christian act of mercy. So the answer to your question is that Christians as a group are not hateful. Some individual Christians, perhaps even led by an errant person, who are misguided may actually hate persons but in doing so they gravely sin. However, Christians are not guilty of hate or sin, who profess the Gospel and help others to understand how God has created them and what it means to be fully alive, even if it goes against the politically correct mainstream. Moreover not only is it not hate, it is an act of love.

    Ironically, it would seem that in falling into this tendency you are guilty of the same thing you accusing Christians of. It would be more productive to stick to discussing the issues than in condemning Christians by intuiting their interior dispositions.

    Comment by David — November 20, 2007 @ 10:48 am

15. I wrote a long and thoughtful post in response to David, but my post was deleted. How honest of you.

    Comment by Rafa — December 1, 2007 @ 2:44 pm

16. Rafa,

    Long yes, thoughtful is arguable. Any way, your comment never posted. It was caught up in the spam filter. I chose not to release it for the same reason you demonstrate here. While some of your post was certainly worthy of response and discourse, the underlying theme was all the same. If one does not see things your way, the only possible explanation is that those who disagree are guilty of disingenuity and hate. In other words, you present a bigoted attitude toward Christians and I choose not expend time debating with bigots.

    Comment by David — December 5, 2007 @ 2:29 pm

17. David,

    Firstly, my response focused primarily on *unfounded* allegations made by you that the authors we both quoted were forced to conform to the politically correct party line only because they didn’t report the results of their researches the way you’d enjoy.

    Your previous message advised me not to change the subject, to instead focus on the message, not on the messanger, and I responded by telling why in my view you were the one who changed the subject by using such easy, however impossible to demonstrate, excuses such as “those scientists were repressed by the larger-than-life politically correct forces that dominate academia.”

    I quoted other researches, some of them by the same authors you referred to, etc., etc.

    Only a fraction of my post was directed to justify why I believe your, and many other Christian conservative political figures’, stances were not only bigoted and hateful, but also unlikely to reach out to the ones whose souls you’re supposedly trying to save.
    - 1: I don’t think a Christian who is primarily motivated to the salvation of his own soul and the persons whom he is trying to convert to “God” (including his gay and lesbian “brothers” and “sisters”) is hateful; quite the contrary. I remember saying such an attitude is fueled by an intrinsic love-filled nature.
    - 2: I explained that I labeled your and many other Christians’ stance as hateful because, in my perception, at least in the right-wing side of the institutions which currently and publicly represent Christianity, it is palpable there’s a great effort in denigrating and dehumanizing persons whose lives markedly contrast with the ideals of social conservatism or Christianity. That would include gays and lesbians and, to a lesser extent and degree, seculars, progressive activists, etc.

    I can’t see anything but disingenuousity from you when you accuse me of labeling *anyone* who disagrees with me as hateful. Being a secular and an atheist, I don’t believe in the concept of “sin”, and, as such, I disagree completely with persons who believe homosexuality is a sin. But, as I made clear, I don’t believe all those Christians who deem homosexuality to be sinful are hateful.

    Secondly, remember that the discussion and the very thread have a moral theme: the moral and psychological nature of homosexuality and its relationship to other immoral and psychologically perverted predispositions. YOU were expressing your own “right” and “wrong”; the discussion you created was not “value free”. As such, I didn’t feel wrong to express MY OWN “right” and “wrong”. If that was too hurtful for you, too bad for me. But you could still deal with the portion of my post on the main subject, i.e., the scientific evidence on the relationship between adult homosexuality and pedophilia. I believe you could still edit my post and divulge the portion that you felt was “worthy of response and discourse”, instead of censoring it in its entirety. Look at my very first post and your response: most of what I wrote focused on studies about the main subject; however, most of what you wrote focused on telling that you’re a good Christian trying to correct those who have deviated from Christianity, and I’m the one who is bigoted…

    This time, I don’t believe I was too insensitive, so I ask you to let my views be expressed too. By the way, it’s a pity you consider personal stances alone to be a reason to avoid discussion with a particular individual, even when at least part of his discourses is worthy of response. My stance is the inverse, I try to combat wrongful persecution and bigotry whenever I see it.

    Comment by Rafa — December 6, 2007 @ 9:01 pm

18. Rafa,

    There is just too much here to discuss in a combox venue. However, I will make but a few points in response to some of yours:

    >> my response focused primarily on unfounded allegations made by you that the authors we both quoted were forced to conform to the politically correct party line
    

    I would argue that it is not an unfounded allegation but the explanation for a great amount of disagreement among researchers as the the conclusions to be drawn from presented data or even from the methodology itself. In the United States, there is a strong bias against those who do not tote the party line about SSA. Some examples: the former president of the American Psychological Association condemned it for preventing research into reorientation therapy, here is a summary of attempts to stifle “dissent” in the academy, and here is an article from a former APA member who discusses the peer pressure against those members who do not subordinate science and their patients to ideology. Whether researchers succumb knowingly or because of infused ideology is case specific and often unknowable. One case in which it was the succumbing to ideology would be case of Dr. Robert Spitzer. Dr. Spitzer initially did not think re-orientation was possible. He was the expert whose testimony was the basis for the removal of homosexuality from the APA’s DSM as a disorder in 1973. He has admitted that it was more based upon his view of civil rights than anything that science had provided him. He has now has conducted a study which shows that reorientation therapy is effective. In fact, as a result he has had his credibility attacked and has been condemned for it as being unethical among other things (see here for example).

    Now if you read closely the wording of my assertion, then you will see that, for example, the Blanchard et. al. study at the top of my list clearly supports the assertion. My assertion is that there is a close link between those who engage in homosexual intercourse and child abuse (of all kinds, not solely pedophilia). His study found a 25% rate of homosexuality among pedophiles. He goes on to say “The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2–4% of men attracted to adults prefer men (ACSF Investigators, 1992; Billy et al., 1993; Fay et al., 1989; Johnson et al., 1992); in contrast, around 25–40% of men attracted to children prefer boys (Blanchard et al., 1999; Gebhard et al., 1965; Mohr et al., 1964). Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6–20 times higher among pedophiles.” This seems to me to say the same exact thing as my comment. My point is that there is a statistical correlation between the homosexual attraction and child abuse. The reason of course, is that disorder begets disorder.

    You might note that you didn’t mention my reference to the data given by homosexual activists Karla Jay and Allen Young in their 1979 Gay Report showing that 73% of all those who self identify as “gay” have acted as “chicken hawks”, i.e., they have preyed on adolescent, or even younger, boys though most were postpubescent. This is ephebophilia not pedophilia but it is also child abuse (NB that I did not say that all people with SSAD were pedophiles). With postpubescents, the relevance of (the morally objectionable) phallometric testing is immaterial. This is because there ought to be a natural sexual inclination to a sexually mature (but not psychologically mature which ultimately does not occur until the third decade of life –for this see Weinberger et. al. The Adolescent Brain: A Work in Progress, The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 2005 ) person of the other sex. In the case of SSAD since the inclination is not natural, i.e. there is no telos for procreation, it is impossible to say that there is a difference between sexually mature and sexually immature attraction it seems to me. Nevertheless, the issue with post-pubescents is the matter of whether one can respect the psychological immaturity of the child and master himself in order not to use the child for one’s own pleasure (the morality of sexual intercourse outside of its natural place in marital intercourse aside). Thus, it is primarily an issue of acting on one’s impulses toward adolescents and not the impulses themselves. The best evidence among the general population (including “gays”) is that those who cannot are less than 10% of the population. Since those suffering from SSA are 2-4% of the population, this suggests a very low rate of ephebophilia for the heterosexual with as compared to this figure of 73%. This, it seems to me, is significant evidence that SSAD is clearly an affective disorder that requires treatment in order for the sufferer to be able to master his actions.

    Hopefully it is clear that I have not called all those suffering from SSAD pedophiles and I did not suggest that the studies I cited said as much either. However, I did provide a plethora of other evidence and arguments that demonstrate why SSAD cannot be an ontological state but is in fact a disorder. As a Christian, it is my duty to care for the whole person, including his soul. Thus, part of witnessing to the Good News of salvation, is witnessing to what the human person is and how he can be what he was created for…to be most fully alive. This disorder must be treated for that to happen. Thus, your suggestion of what a Christian may or may not do is somewhat out of place. I would suggest that you first need to understand Catholic teaching before you are able to criticize a Catholic for not following Christianity.

    >>I explained that I labeled your and many other Christians’ stance as hateful because, in my perception, at least in the right-wing side of the institutions which currently and publicly represent Christianity, it is palpable there’s a great effort in denigrating and dehumanizing persons whose lives markedly contrast with the ideals of social conservatism or Christianity.
    
    Well, first your language of “right-wing” already reveals an ideology which does not accord with Catholic thought or teaching. Secondly, it is a great caricature to say that in explaining why SSA is a disorder, that in doing so, one is guilty of dehumanizing and denigrating a person. This is especially the case when we go to great lengths to explain that every person has an innate dignity because he is made in the image of God. Thus no one may deny anyone’s dignity. To do so would be a great sin. Rather, we distinguish carefully between the person and the act. This distinction between what one does and what he is, is something which you seem intent on ignoring for some reason. Your caricature of describing the evidence I have presented as an assault against the person reveals an ideology that cannot separate an act from the person.

    >>Being a secular and an atheist, I don’t believe in the concept of “sin”, and, as such, I disagree completely with persons who believe homosexuality is a sin.
    
    As does Catholic teaching and do I. The disorder called SSA is not a sin. Choosing to act upon it is. However, it seems to me that you are being quite inconsistent. Being an atheist I do not see how you have any grounds for claiming moral absolutes, which you yourself imply. So on what grounds would you judge that bigotry or persecution are wrong? As you imply it seems to me that all you can say is that they do not accord with your values. But then what justification do you have for trying to “push” your values on others? If I were to adopt your world view there would be no grounds for argument. There could only be a complaint that I do not accept your values and perhaps at most, some pragmatic argument of the consequences if everyone were to ignore your values. However, as it is, I agree that bigotry and persecution are wrong. But I can go further and say that it is wrong not just for you and me, but for everyone. These are moral absolutes because they are grounded in the dignity of the human person.

    >>By the way, it’s a pity you consider personal stances alone to be a reason to avoid discussion with a particular individual, even when at least part of his discourses is worthy of response.

    It is not the case that I consider personal stance as rationale for deciding when and when not to engage in discussion. It is a matter of my available time and the openness of the other to dialog. In your case I judged your character to be bigoted against Christians. Perhaps your allowance of what you think Christians ought to do seems to give you room to say that you are not, but I would argue that the limits that you want to put on them leave no room for the fullness of Christian revelation. Thus, only a Christian who rejects the fullness of faith is a legitimate Christian in your view. Thus, I would still say that you demonstrate a bigotry against Catholicism that you do not seem ready to engage on its own terms. Thus, it seems to me that you are not open to dialog as I intuit from your continued caricature of Catholic teaching and your judgments about my motivation rather than engaging in discussion about the issues themselves.

    >>I try to combat wrongful persecution and bigotry whenever I see it.
    
    One thing about Catholic teaching that you might find helpful is the admonition that human person is all guilty of these and other sins from time to time because of our fallen state. Therefore, a nightly, humble examination of conscience is necessary in order to come to more fully know yourself and honestly appraise where you failed to be what God has created you to be. I have submitted myself to such an examination in your case and found that I did not sufficiently consider some of your points and I was not sufficiently charitable with my time to attempt to more clearly explain my thinking. Thus, I was convicted to take time from preparation for my class this afternoon and to devote it to trying to explain better my position to you. Perhaps, you might consider doing the same and reconsider some of my points as well.

    This is not meant as anything but an expression of Christian love which I hope you will be able to accept in that light, but I would like to express my intentions of prayers for God’s blessings upon you and your loved ones.

    Comment by David — December 7, 2007 @ 9:33 am

19. “Hopefully it is clear that I have not called all those suffering from SSAD pedophiles and I did not suggest that the studies I cited said as much either. However, I did provide a plethora of other evidence and arguments that demonstrate why SSAD cannot be an ontological state but is in fact a disorder”

    I feel the need to respond to that too. I have referenced to a great number of studies that suggest adult homosexual orientation doesn’t overlapp significantly with sexual attraction to children and/or child molestation. Some of the evidence I’ve offered were in fact the very same studies you referenced, only interpreted differently and, dare I say, more correctly. =P

    Arrogance aside, let’s suppose you’re 100% correct. The “fact” that X correlates with Y, and Y is considered a disordered behavior by both its social and psychological effects, and because of its perpetrator’s psychological state, would that mean X is also a disorder? I don’t think so, even though some scientists do think so. Richard Friedman, a kown gay psychoanalyst, has offered some evidence that, based on samples of gay and straight men, distributed according to the Kinsey’s scale, gay men were not necessarily more disturbed by mental enfermity than straights. Friedman has argued, however, that gender identity disorder in childhood, because of its considerable correlation with other kinds of poor mental well-being, should still be considered a disease. I don’t agree with him, and I don’t think a behavior or a personality trait should be considered pathological only because it is moderately linked with truly disordered behaviors or traits.

    Masculinity is highly correlated with aggression, sexual aggression, and character disorders; femininity is correlated with emotional vulnerability and depression. But neither high masculinity or femininity are viewed as diseases, and many people consider it to be desireable traits for themselves or their partners.

    I mean to say that, if something is negatively viewed, or has a history of being viewed in a negative light, and such is the case of homosexuality, it is likely that its link (whether true or not) to other behaviors or traits which are viewed as, or indeed are, pathological will be noticed as evidence that it is indeed pathological.

    Such a reasoning wouldn’t be applied with other kinds of “deviance” (I’m using ‘deviance’ to mean any kind of statistical rarity). High IQ, for example. Children with very high IQs are more emotionally vulnerable; it also seems to be visibly and linearly correlated with social and emotional maladjustment in adults  http://www.prometheussociety.org/article…). However, I doubt that, based on that, intellectual giftedness would ever be seen as somewhat pathological or socially undesireble, like homosexuality is or was. Why? Because intellectual giftedness is, and has been for a very long time, seen as useful for both the individual and the society, while homosexuality is not.

    Comment by Rafa — December 8, 2007 @ 5:53 am

20. >> Arrogance aside,

    Yours or mine? Rafa, arrogance is an attitude not a truth claim. It is not clear to me what justifies your accusation that I have an arrogant attitude other than my failure to acquiesce to your point of view. If this be the reason, it would seem more appropriate for us to assume that the answer to my question is that it is yours.

    Rafa - sorry but I do not have time to continue to go back and forth on this issue right now. Thus, I will not release the other two posts of yours caught in the filter.

    In a general response to your comments here I would say that one is more than justified using common sense to first presuppose that SSA is a disorder because it has no biological telos. The overwhelming medical evidence of physical damage done for those who engage in anal intercourse ratifies this view. When one looks at the rest of the evidence of pathologies arising from those engaging in this lifestyle, medical and psychological, it seems to me that for the culturally unconditioned observers, this leaves no room for doubt.

    In a quick response to this comment let me say that it seems to me you are focusing on (here and throughout your other comments) trying to argue that there is no causal relationship between SSAD and pedophilia. I have made a different argument. In the one comment that I made, I have said that there is a high correlation between child abuse (not simply pedophilia) and those who suffer from SSA. While pedophilia is a different disorder the SSAD, it fits the model that one sexual disorder can give rise to sexually related disorder. However, child abuse of adolescents is more directly tied to SSAD, and according to the survey I mentioned, at a significantly high rate.

    I do not believe that your argument above counters my general assertion for the following reasons. A) I make no causal claim from SSAD to pedophilia but a relation of sexual disorders. B) This relational assertion is conjoined with the assertion that those engaging in SSAD have the above stated significantly high rate of abusing postpubescent adolescents. C) You presuppose that SSAD is not a disorder. While you take the authority of much of the established psychological establishment for this presupposition, as one who does not I think myself justified in that they limit their competence in making such a claim as they reduce the human person to a biological organism and in doing so fail to account for the entire human person. In so doing they also deny commonsense and even here, they ignore the vast spectrum of medical and psychological evidence to the contrary. WRT the tendencies of males and females: masculinity and femininity both have a natural telos. There is no possibility of continuation of the species without sex difference. With respect to the IQ assertion: the rational faculties are proper to human nature and make manifest our difference from the subpersonal animals. Thus, it would be folly to consider any of these to be pathologies. Rather the logical move would be to understand why normal functioning could go wrong; not so with SSAD. When one does this in the case of masculinity and femininity, what he finds is that in the case of secondary sex characteristics, these support primary sex characteristics but if the person does not properly master themselves, the inclinations arising from their sex specific endocrine system can become difficult and then almost impossible to resist. Christianity has an understanding of why this is so. It is due to the loss of a supporting ad extra because of the fall of humanity; human nature now suffers from concupiscence and so each person now has the task of mastering himself by teaching his affectivities/inclinations to subordinate themselves to that which makes him human–his reason.

    It is perhaps time to take this thread out of active commenting.

    Comment by David — December 8, 2007 @ 3:25 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

"...So it is with human beings, with the man and the woman who use the sexual urge in sexual intercourse and enter as it were into the cosmic stream by which existence is transmitted."

- Karol Wojtyła, Love and Responsibility

• 
  

• * New to the Blogroll

  • 

• Blogroll

  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 

• Meta-Threads

  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 

• Archives

  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005

• Categories

  • Abortion (146)
  • Anthropology (180)
  • Anti-Catholic (29)
  • Biblical Reflections (17)
  • Contraception (19)
  • Creation (40)
  • Culture (523)
  • Dissent (114)
  • Ecclesiology (58)
  • Faith & Reason (37)
  • Feminism (49)
  • Holiness (30)
  • Liturgy & Sacraments (68)
  • Marriage & Family (130)
  • Medical Ethics (39)
  • Odds and Ends (39)
  • Prayer and Devotions (1)
  • Priesthood (71)
  • Purity (40)
  • Religion and Science (61)
  • Sex & Human Personhood (5)
  • Sexuality (119)
  • Soteriology (11)
  • Spiritual Life (23)
  • SSA Disorder (170)
  • The Apostolate (62)
  • The Moral Life (5)
  • Theology (50)
  • Trinitarian Theology (1)
  • Truth & Revelation (45)
  • Uncategorized (177)
  • Wednesday Audiences (9)




Theology of the Body Resources


<< # CIN Bloggers ? >>








Who links to us?