In reviewing NARTH’s posting of Zenit’s interview with Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons (described as “a psychiatrist, author and contributor to the Catholic Medical Association’s document “Homosexuality and Hope.””) it quickly became clear that an analysis of the content would be lengthy, cumbersome and boring. Dr. Fitsgibbons does not add anything new to the debate but instead simply restates a litany of stereotypes, myths and lies.
So why is NARTH posting the article? Surely they have some purpose. So I will attempt to see if we can identify the reason both for the article and for the posting.
The article was issued by Zenit, a Catholic news service and was issued at the time that the new ruling from the Vatican was released. It appears that this interview is a sort of pseudo-secular justification of the Pope’s significant change in the Church’s position on celibate gay priests.
The positions stated as though fact are:
* Those with “deep seated homosexual tendencies” are defined as those who identify as being homosexual.
* Same-sex attractions are “due to profound weakness in male confidence”
* Gay priests have “significant affective immaturity with excessive anger and jealousy toward males” and “a much higher prevalence of psychiatric illness”.
* Further, they “may even experience strong physical and sexual attraction to adolescent males, as has occurred in the crisis in the Church”.
* “Also, priests would be helped if the “crisis boundary” programs did not mask the role of homosexuality in the abuse of the adolescent male victims. Instead, these programs should describe why adult males might be sexually attracted to adolescents and how this conflict can be resolved.”
The article goes on in length with the same sort of stuff but also plays up the ex-gay efforts.
By contrast to “deeply seated tendency” homosexuals, “those with mild homosexual tendencies do not identify themselves as homosexuals. Such men are motivated to understand and to overcome their emotional conflicts. They regularly seek psychotherapy and spiritual direction.”
However, Fitzgibbons never says that those with mild tendencies should be allowed to continue to serve. He simply veers back into repeating the same negative unbased lies.
But why?
Clearly this piece was to justify the position taken by the Pope. If gay priests are immature, angry, jealous, and psychiatrically ill, then surely they are a danger to other priests and should be removed. If they experience strong sexual attraction to adolescent males, then they can and must be blamed for the Church’s molestation scandal.
So this article was written and distributed by a “news source” that defines itself as “specializing in coverage of the Holy Father, life in the Holy See, and events of interest to the Church.” Though I am generally reluctant to make accusations of this sort, it is clear to me that this article is pure propaganda designed to serve the political needs of the Roman Catholic Church.
Why then is it on the website of a purportedly secular psychiatric organization? Who is it designed to reach?
This article would be immediately dismissed by any person who had lived any period of time as gay-identified. Very few people would read this an see in themselves immaturity, anger, jealousy, pedophilia, effeminacy, lack of male confidence, and the host of other attributes that Fitzgibbons glibly assigns to all homosexuals. So we can conclude the target audience of this posting is not gay people seeking help with same-sex attractions. In fact, most of those with same-sex attractions would be somewhat put off by Fitzgibbon’s advice to go away and not embarrass the church.
“…those in formation in religious communities with same-sex attractions have a serious responsibility to protect the Church from further shame and sorrow.”
Further, any family member seeking advice would probably not look at Fitzgibbon’s descriptions and recognize their loved ones. Unless, of course, their relationship was so frayed that they had no honest communication with their “loved ones”.
Who is left? It seems to me that this article is posted for the pleasure of those who either do not have a familiarity with gay people or else have a vested interest in the continued stereotyping of gay persons. The audience most likely to be attracted by this article comprises anti-gay activists or those willing to contribute money to fight some “homosexual agenda”.
The article implicitly accuses at least 30 percent of Catholic priests of being immature, angry, jealous, effeminate, and mentally ill.
What does that say about the hierarchy that recruited and ordained such scoundrels?
Mike A, also what does that say about the hierarchy that, after having been complained to about molesting priests, merely shifted them around to other parishes instead of turning them over to law enforcement? That was the primary issue here in the Boston archdioces: Cardinal Law(less) and his predecessor merely shifted the accused priests around.
No link. The stories were in the Boston Globe a couple of years ago, and probably are behind the pay-for veil.
Mike A. at December 21, 2005 02:06 AM
Also, a question: are you Mike Airhart? If so, please use your complete handle. If not, it is rather confusing to see so many people using “confusingly similar” (in a trademark sense) handles on Internet web sites. Just an observation.
The Catholic Church has lost Europe, and is quickly losing The United States.
Their clinging the third wrold countries, who once they see the light will leave too.
So, we can just sit back and watch, as that evil institution fades from the earth.
Raj said:
No link. The stories were in the Boston Globe a couple of years ago, and probably are behind the pay-for veil.
Allow me to help
list a few. No veil that I can find, even at the BG.
David
I have an interest in responding to this interview, but as Timothy noted I expect that to be a lengthy process. I likely wouldn’t get at it until after new years and then could probably have something pretty good together in a couple of weeks. Would it still be worthwhile to have a response then? I doubt I can back it all up with references like Grantdale would, but I’m pretty sure I can make a compelling logical argument that Fitzgibbons has it backwards, is lying and reality is quite different from what he is saying.
ReasonAble at December 21, 2005 12:28 PM
Thanks Sometimes it’s difficult to do a search at 4AM I was looking on Boston.com
I know that oftentimes newspapers of record have “packages.” It is good that the Boston Globe still have these reports up for free.
I have to choose a fake name. When I came out to my parents, I was promptly sent to this man or my parents were going to disown me entirely and out me to my community. Anyways, Fitzgibbons is not as bad as he sounds really. True he does try to categorize my expierences and create a cause effect scenario despite my blue collar background, various sports awards, and decent family history. Yes he does toe the party line as he must, but he has helped keep my violent anti-gay parents in check and does not push any “therapy” or “treatment” on me, but instead helps me keep my emotional strength and sanity as I deal with the various backlashes of being gay(from straight people). So keep the comments coming but understand he is much better then the rest of the fucking loons.
John, if what you’re saying is true then that makes the article worse. It makes Fitzgibbons a liar for making sweeping claims about gay people which he knows to be untrue.
I have to choose a fake name.
Don’t worry about that. I have used the handle “raj” (or less likely, raj49) ever since I started commenting on web sites. Why did I choose that handle? “raj” are my initials, and it’s a heck of a lot easier to type that than it would be to have typed in my full name.
The funny thing is that, on a conservative board on which I was posting, someone suggested that I go back to India. The Raj, you know. I, as, as well, a number of long time posters on the board, were rolling on the floor laughing.
You might consider choosing a distinctive handle so that we can follow you through your posts.
Fair enough, I’ll just go as “credo” from now on.
Okay, I’ve reread the article. The lie that continues to be perpetuated by exgay therapists and the whole damn movement is the fact that priests must be gay because they molested boys. Couldn’t it just be convience(*sp) and not sexual orientation. No parent would ever allow their little girls to be alone with a single man, but they allow their boys to spend time with them. So a sexually fustrated man will use whatever is around them to alleviate their desires, just wish fitzgibbons and co. would see that.
They don’t know the difference between homosexual and pedophile. And they’re too stupid to find out.