C-L-S: “A Far-Right Catholic Website”?
Well, our little post of a couple of weeks ago has been making the rounds in the blog-o-sphere. Amélie picked it up first and then Fr. Neuhaus blogged on it, and then we experienced a flurry of visits from folks who have given us awards of tin foil hats to those who have promised us there is a special place in hell reserved for us.
Now, the infamous erstwhile Catholic, currently anti-Catholic bigot, Andrew Sullivan has deigned to toss a rather meager epithet our way, calling us a far-right Catholic website. Tell the rad-trads that. I suspect that many consider us only a little bit better than Andrew himself. After Sullivan’s post smaller blogs began to pile on, whose purveyors advertise themselves as suffering from and embracing the temptations arising from same-sex attraction disorder .
Of course we do not have top billing in the Sullivan post, rather we play a bit part to the ire he fumes at Fr. Neuhaus. I do believe that this is the first time I have read any of Sullivan’s writing. I understand that he is not unintelligent; however, I also realize that flaming emotions can undermine one’s intellectual capacities. I think that may have happened here. My first impression in reading his attack on Fr. Neuhaus was an old maxim my mom taught us as kids, “now if that isn’t the pot calling the kettle black.”
He complains:
Neuhaus is a highly intelligent person. He knows that his slurs against gay parents cannot be substantiated, which is why he tosses these claims out there to see if they can stick.
However, Sullivan then does exactly that of which he accuses Fr. Neuhaus. Sullivan attempts to dismiss the arguments by undermining the credibility of a “far-right Catholic website” that uses a review done by “Pat Robertson’s ‘Regent University’” which analyzed a study done by Dr. Paul Cameron. Hmmm, I wonder how he knows we are “far-right.” You might have noticed that we have absolutely no political postings here by design. I suppose he falls into the trap of misapplying 18th century political constructs as euphemisms for whether or not one follows his personal desires or the Truth of Christ as taught by His Church (see here for some further thoughts on this). I suppose the ad hominem approach is quite conveneint for those who wish to be able to dismiss someone as having no credibility rather than having to deal with his arguments.
Cameron is someone very familiar to the “gay” lobby. They have done much to try to smear his reputation (does anyone see a pattern here?). I have seen the ad hominem together with the substantive criticisms and I am reserving judgment at this point. However, Sullivan tries to portray all of Fr. Neuhaus’s argument as being based upon the Cameron-Cameron study. Sullivan was not as careful as was Fr. Neuhaus. Fr. Neuhaus actually said:
The claim that 50 or 60 percent of children reared by male homosexuals turn out to be homosexual or bisexual doesn’t cut any ice in some quarters. So what’s wrong with being homosexual or bisexual?
Notice here, that Fr. Neuhaus couches his comment in terms of a “claim”. He recognizes that the Regent’s scientists have said that while the Cameron-Cameron methodoogy was sound, the sample size was small so the data is “suggestive.” Fr. Neuhaus’s comment then incorporates the statement attributed to the American Psychiatric Association’s star research advisor, Charlotte J. Patterson quoted later on in my earlier post:
…Patterson acknowledged in a newspaper interview that her paper didn’t address one of the questions most often asked about lesbian families: do their children turn out to be homosexual? She and others who promote lesbian families have always indicated that such a question is irrelevant because it doesn’t matter, since homosexuality, in their view, is simply a variant of normal sexuality. Such questions are dismissed as “homophobic.â€
In other words, regardless of the concerns, investigating the sexual identity of the chidren raised by SSA couples is not an issue the APA’s star expert on SSA child rearing wants to discuss. Regardless of the numbers, however, Fr. Neuhaus makes an important point. There is a claim. Why not investigate it independently instead of dismissing it as ‘homophobic’? Because of an agenda?
O.k., I see where we are going with this. It’s always a conspiracy with you ‘right-wingers” isn’t it? Well, this claim comes not from us, but from a former president of the APA at one their annual conventions. Of reorientation therapy with homosexuals, Dr. Robert Perloff said:
“It is considered unethical…That’s all wrong. First, the data are not fully in yet. Second, if the client wants a change, listen to the client. Third, you’re barring research.”
“How can you do research on change if therapists involved in this work are threatened with being branded as unethical?”
You see, the question cannot even be asked. Who is being anti-science? We cannot expect to get much out of the APA if anything that shows that “gay” is not o.k., is by tyrannical fiat–unethical. Fr. Neuhaus makes another point:
And, if the incidence of sexual abuse of children in such settings is many times the norm, well, isn’t it time we reconsider the legitimacy of intergenerational love?”
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.
Now Sullivan turns his (water) guns on the Cameron and Cameron study. He says that the sample size is too low to make across the board generalizations. He is right. The Cameron and Cameron study itself admits this. In fact, this is where I agree with Sullivan, as does the Regents study.
Sullivan says that many of the studies suffer from small sample size and poor methodology. In fact, the Regent study shows, and the point that we making, is that there are no studies currently available that are either methodologically valid or statistically significant (only one had a statistically significant sample size but was flawed because of sampling bias) that can show there is no harm done to children raised by SSA practicing parents. Dr. Fiona Tasker, no “right-winger”, has found similarly. It is not enough to show that there is no evidence of problems; SSA couples as parents must be shown to be safe. Parenting is not a right; the safety of children is at stake.
Is there a reason to be concerned? There is. In fact, the medical and psychological disorders that plague SSA practicing folks at such a high rate (see again, It’s not so gay after all) presents a problematic environment in which we cannot in good conscience introduce children.
These problems combined with the “suggestive” concerns raised by the Cameron and Cameron study are sufficient to warrant at least the provisional conclusion that SSA parenting may be problematic. There is also plenty of anecdotal concern (for example). Unfortunately, the Regents study shows that because the rate of SSA parenting is so low and the target group so hard to reach and unbaisedly sample, that it may be cost prohibitive to do the random sampling of statistically significant sample size in order to make valid population wide generalizations. In addition, because the issue is now so politicized, I doubt even a random sample of sufficient magnitude will provide sample responses that one can be sure are truthful.
Sullivan is concerned about slander against “gay” people. This is the fundamental problem isn’t it? I suppose that it is understandable. Every time he hears that SSA is problematic he hears it as an attack against his person.
He does not want to address the arguments that show homosexuality is not an ontological state but rather an affective disorder. In the words of Hierothee: But it is clearly an affective disorder because it is an orientation of desire in conflict with one’s sexed bodiliness. When one’s emotional drive is pitted against one’s concrete, bodily condition in this way, one is psychologically malformed, if the notion of psychological health or illness is to have any meaning at all.
Well, we’ll keep trying to find ways to say so in as charitable manner as possible. Maybe someone will find it helpful, when they are ready to listen…
.jpg)
The only evidence that you need that homosexuality is disordered is to subject it to the “what if everybody did it” test.
BTW, nice commentary you far-right Catholic, you!
Comment by Tony — March 27, 2006 @ 12:46 pm
I’ve been the target of libelous attacks by homosexual activists in my hometown of Brainerd, MN, for having had the temerity to point out that homosexual acts have negative health consequences. Yes, something, as utterly provable as the fact that the average homosexual life expectancy is decades shorter than the average heterosexual life expectancy will get you publicly denounced even in smalltown USA!
At first I wondered how so much rage could be generated by comments that are basically factual, so I started looking into the typical homosexual psychological profile. As it turns out, that’s not very easy to do, because homosexuals have taken over the leadership positions in the very organization that should be doing this sort of research. However, I did find some good information on the NARTH website, and also in a book by Gerard van der Aardweg, who has done reparative therapy for over thirty years. Homosexuality is a fascinating pathology that has many dimensions, but narcissm and feeling sorry for yourself are very important components of it. Obviously, if a person tends to wallow in self-pity, when someone criticizes something they do, it tends to evoke a rather violent response.
But in addition to the typical psychology of an active homosexual, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, the brilliant homosexual duo published a book back in 1989, called After the Ball, in which they explained that whenever anyone questioned the gloriousness of the homosexual lifestyle they should be attacked quickly and vigorously–a kind of operant conditioning, you might say. This is a very effective way of controlling the vast majority of people who aren’t willing to go to the mat over an issue like homosexuality. It allows a very vocal, but small minority, to control the actions of the majority. It can’t make most heterosexuals believe that homosexuality is “normal” but it certainly can make them reluctant to say such a thing publicly.
Comment by Judy Muehlbauer — March 27, 2006 @ 2:22 pm
In all fairness, I’ve also read that step-parents in general (usually male but sometimes female) are more likely to sexually and physically abuse young people in their care than are biological parents.
Sexual abuse is held in check, so it is said, by the incest taboo, which is usually strong enough, between biological relatives, to prevent inter-generational sex.
As for the issue of physical abuse, people are less likely to injure their own offspring because it is counter-productive from an evolutionary point of view.
Because at least one gay parent in any couple is unlikely to be the biological parent of his or her children, the built-in taboos against abuse are likely to be greatly affected by this flaw in human nature.
Comment by alias clio — March 27, 2006 @ 4:20 pm
If you are using Cameron’s data then you should be called on it. Out of curiosity, were you speaking only of gay males or lesbians too? It’s usually a telling omission. Gay males are usually criticized as being promiscuous while lesbian are usually ignored. Did you take the same stand on heterosexual “swingers” as well? Were they as loudly condemned? Or are there no studies written by anti-swinger political groups that you could refer too?
Your not condemning behavior, you are condemning people.
If you want to examine the issue more honestly, then you might consider that most of the negative things you associate with gay people, promiscuity, etc., are fair criticism of all men, not just gay men. Yet you single out gay men. Why? Are they not behaving in many ways exactly like single straight men do? Of course, straight men have the traditional maturing option of marriage and family to temper their natures. But of course that option is denied to gay and lesbian couples.
Try pointing your finger at the mirror a little more often than at us. Welcome to the tin-foil hat crowd. You have earned it.
Comment by Patrick (gryph) — March 27, 2006 @ 4:24 pm
Woo-hoo! The standard red herring about Catholics not caring about heterosexual promiscuity. It’s so much more helpful than a real argument.
Comment by paul zummo — March 27, 2006 @ 6:02 pm
Sexual abuse is held in check, so it is said, by the incest taboo, which is usually strong enough, between biological relatives, to prevent inter-generational sex.
As for the issue of physical abuse, people are less likely to injure their own offspring because it is counter-productive from an evolutionary point of view.
The human person is distinct from animals in many way but one important way is free will. This comment seems to suggest the author favors biological determinism. The theory is incoherent for many reasons; for one, it is incoheret to try to argue for any theory if we are simply driven by our biological programming and environmental stimuli. In any case, the safety of children is too important to be risked to theoretical extrapolations arrived upon from a deficient theory.
Comment by David — March 27, 2006 @ 6:54 pm
Patrick - I appreciate your civil tone. Yours have been some of the few comments presenting your side of things that did not either need for obscene epithets to be excised or deleted out right.
Of course, straight men have the traditional maturing option of marriage and family to temper their natures.
Social stability is indeed in dire straights due to collapse of sexual morality among heterosexual men. The resulting fatherhood crisis is a major factor in many social ills. This is an important topic on this blog as well. However, the social ills coming from this do not justify turning a blind eye to the social ills associated with the “gay” lifestyle.
There have been many opportunities for “gay” marriage in many European countries for years. The institution has been essentially ignored. That is not what they are after. A 1994 “gay†census happily reports that 52% of gays are in relationships and of these 29% are in them for 8 years or more. How they picked 8 years seems to do more with monkeying with the data than anything else, since 8 years is no where near a lifelong commitment. Further more, 29% of the little over half (52%) means that only 15% make it to 8 years or more. This is not stability and marriage is not going to change this situation as Europe has demonstrated.
The problem here is that there are no “gay” people. Rather, there are people, human beings, who are suffering from an affective disorder that puts them at odds with the way they were made. If they submit to the temptations then the disorder grows increasingly more severe until there is finally some sort of collapse.
There will always be some excuse, but there will never be healing until the disorder is recognized, accepted as such, and attempts are made to over come it.
Comment by David — March 27, 2006 @ 7:13 pm
I am not a biological determinist. I only wished to point out that we are animals as well as spirits, and our animal as well as our spiritual natures are fallen, a fact which is no less true of heterosexual than of homosexual men and women.
As a Catholic, I accept that homosexual love is “objectively disordered”. Heterosexual love, though not disordered in the same sense, is equally subject to temptation, and becomes more difficult to guide in the right direction if we ignore or are unrealistic about our animal natures.
It is one of the odd facts of post-modern life that those who are ostensible materialists have a weirdly disembodied and perversely spiritual view of human nature, as though nobody could ever be weak or tempted. Handsome young non-blood relative living with adoptive gay father? Of course the older man will never give in to temptation!Pretty young teenager living with her mother and mother’s second husband? Of course he wouldn’t think of putting a hand on her!
I am surprised that the tone of my previous post did not make this clear.
Comment by alias clio — March 28, 2006 @ 8:25 am
alias clio
I only wished to point out that we are animals as well as spirits, and our animal as well as our spiritual natures are fallen,
I think I know what you are getting at but I would suggest a precision. We have one human nature, not two (i.e. animal and spiritual). We do share many biological similarities with non-rational animals but our rational, immortal souls give a nature higher than the animals and unique in the world.
It is certainly true that the affectivities associated with the biological aspect of our constitution do lead to temptations. The temptations in fact, get more and more difficult to resist the more we capitulate to them.
I do not see any way for the anthropological theory as to why some animals engage in incest and some do not along with its extrapolation to human beings, to obtain any empirical evidence so as to become compelling. Regardless, the issue is that the SSA is a disorder that affects affective appetitites. While it does not vitiate free will, there is obviously still a risk to children here.
Comment by David — March 28, 2006 @ 2:48 pm
[...] Or…not. After Andrew Sullivan posted about the gutter Neuhaus gets his facts on homosexuality from, the gutter replied that Paul Cameron is being smeared by the “gay lobby”, Neuhaus only said it was a claim, Cameron isn’t his only source, and in any case homosexuals just don’t want to address the fact that they are “psychologically malformed”. But it would “keep trying to find ways to say so in as charitable manner as possible.” Or at any rate, as charitable a manner as possible while spitting in people’s faces and simultaneously twisting a knife in their heart. And you best believe charity like that doesn’t come along every day. [...]
Pingback by The Story So Far… » Blog Archive » Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex — March 30, 2006 @ 9:07 pm
Bruce’s diatribe above in the pingback seems to reaffirm the evidence that a symptom of SSA is affective immaturity.
Comment by David — March 31, 2006 @ 8:43 am