Ex-Gay Watch

The Catholic Bishops will be voting on guidelines for ministry to gay parishioners. And the drafted guidelines show both the difficulty with the church’s conflicting principles and how the Catholic position varies from that of evangelical based ex-gay ministries.

The Church (along with some other Christian churches) has both a desire to be in ministry to gay people and a desire to hold to traditional anti-gay doctrine. These conflicting goals lead to somewhat schizophrenic pronouncements about homosexuality in all its disordered evil nature that simultaneously state that gay people are not morally defective.

And though the church seems to want to distinguish between gay persons and gay acts, it’s clear that even those contributing to the guidelines do not see homosexuals completely distinctly from homosexuality. Having same-sex attractions disqualifies Catholics from various levels of service, regardless of sexual activity. And under this Pope the Church has made as a primary target those civil laws which treat gay persons equal to straight persons.

However, the Church veers from the ex-gay position of the more evangelical based Exodus. Unlike pronouncements from Alan Chambers, Catholics are not considered sinful by recognizing their orientation. Identifying as gay seems to be less of a “sin” than engaging in behavior that the Church declares sinful.

This new document puts more emphasis on the church’s moral teaching about sexuality. It says that although having a “homosexual inclination” is not itself a sin, homosexual sex is a sin — as are premarital sex and adultery. The answer in all these situations is chastity.

Yet though having a gay identity isn’t condemned, the Church apparently finds it shameful or disruptive and to be kept secret.

It says that gay people may benefit from revealing their “tendencies” to friends, family and their priest, but should not make “general public announcements” about it in the parish.

However gay Catholics are not encouraged to seek therapy to become ex-gay.

The guidelines also say that gay men and lesbians have “no moral obligation to attempt” therapy, an apparent reference to therapy programs that claim to change gay people’s sexual orientation. It says that while “some have found therapy helpful,” there is “no scientific consensus” either on therapy or the causes of homosexuality.

I find the Catholic position to be both more honest and more consistent with their own teachings. But as a tool for ministering to gay persons, I believe it fails miserably. While the Pope wages a political war on the civil rights of gay Catholics in Europe, a document that says you should stay mostly closeted and should not be allowed full participation in the Church is hardly going to bring comfort to those gay Catholics who are living in faithful compliance with Catholic teachings on sexuality.

It’s clear that the Church has not given priority to the experiences, attitudes, and perspectives of actual gay persons in preparing this new document. Perhaps the New York Times’ opening paragraph best illustrates the problem the Church has:

The nation’s Roman Catholic bishops have drafted new guidelines for ministry to gay people that affirm church teaching against same-sex relationships, marriages and adoptions by gay couples, yet encourage parishes to reach out to gay Catholics who feel alienated by their church.

This is a follow-up to Love In Action’s Day in Court.

Love In Action Settles Lawsuit With Tennessee. Excerpt:

On Friday, Love in Action announced a settlement in which the state agreed that the facilities did not need to be licensed and agreed to pay the organization’s attorneys’ fees and expenses in the lawsuit.

In return, Love in Action agreed that its employees would not administer or regulate the medications of program participants.

“TDMHDD is pleased that the case has been settled to the satisfaction of all parties involved,” department spokes woman Jill M. Hudson said in a statement.

Love In Action’s stated mission is “the prevention or remediation of unhealthy and destructive behaviors facing families, adults and adolescents,” including promiscuity, pornography and homosexuality

So, the Love In Action program will continue with minor changes…

And, The State of Tennessee will pick up the legal tab for all sides in the case. I can’t imagine this conclusion is one that many LGBT activists will be satisfied with.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey has just decided that gay couples are entitled to all the rights that heterosexual couples have… but do not have a claim to the institution of marriage. The legislature of that state now has 180 days in which to decide whether to change the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or whether to create another separate-but-equal institution to provide benefits and obligations.

Much of the argument against marriage equality is that man-woman marriage is the ideal grouping in which to raise children. While same-sex couples may raise perfectly fine kids, it just isn’t as good a model as opposite-sex couples and therefore the state has the right to reserve the privileges of ‘marriage’ to those groupings that best benefit society.

Perhaps the legislature of New Jersey will take the high road and opt for equality. Probably not. Having just finished Jim McGreevey’s autobiography, his observations about the ethical character of New Jersey politicians suggests that they will have no problem with treating their citizens as two different classes of people. I hope I’m wrong.

But assuming that New Jersey will create Civil Unions (or revise their Domestic Partnerships) to provide second class status for gay marriages, I think they should take the opportunity to look at other marriages that don’t meet the standard of “optimal”. Such marriages could include:

Divorced Marriages – All studies agree that divorce is horrible on children. And a huge percentage of sexual abuse of minors is by step-parents. Clearly this isn’t ideal.

Ex-Gay Marriages – The limited information available suggests that ex-gay marriages are much more likely to end in divorce than straight marriages. This is devastating on the kids. Clearly this isn’t ideal.

Mixed Orientation Marriages – These are probably not much more successful than ex-gay marriages (though certainly more honest). And the dynamic between the parents is not a healthy model for children. Clearly this isn’t ideal.

Post-Menopausal Marriages – These marriages don’t result in children. And since the anti-gays will tell you that the primary purpose of marriage is children, then one that can’t result in children really only needs the benefits and obligations of marriage, not marriage itself. Clearly this isn’t ideal.

Perhaps you can think of a few more marriages that could be downgraded to Civil Unions. Feel free to use the criteria that anti-gay and ex-gay speakers use to argue against equality.

Of course I really don’t favor diminishing the relationships of any married couples. But perhaps if straight judges and politicians (and ex-gay ministers) viewed themselves the same way they view gay people, these arguments for legal discrimination and the opposition to equality would someday go away.

From NARTH’s Political Correctness Gone Amok: The Latest Controversy (October 10, 2006):

“The bottom line,” said NARTH President Joseph Nicolosi, “is that NARTH’s mission has nothing to do with any social issue others than same-sex attraction. Our mission is to defend our clients’ rights to assert their own values and say, ‘Gay is not who I really am.’”

NARTH’s position statements are In agreement with that are with that statement — for example, nothing is written there about transgender or transsexual people.

So why did NARTH publish an article entitled UK Physician Investigated Over Rushed Sex Change Operations on October 23, 2006?

My opinion: NARTH’s agendas have always been broader than their position statements. One of NARTH’s problems is the organization keeps getting caught having broader agendas than organization president Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D. admits. That speaks loudly about NARTH organizational credibility; that speaks loudly about NARTH organization integrity.

I failed to notice that I had made this page an open forum.

So the protest of Ex-Gay Watch’s policy against using quotation marks around “ex-gay” was allowed. I have unbanned Randi Schimnosky.

I am sorry for acting so aggressively.

I remain disappointed in our commenters for demanding politically correct labeling, for expressing intolerance toward sexual strugglers, and for seeking to suppress the fact that a few ex-gays and ex-gay blogs disagree with the religious-right and “change is possible” messages.

Which was going to be the first ex-gay group to come out and suggest Mark Foley enter a conversion program?

We finally have our answer, PFOX. It took long enough…

(via Good As You)

From Pastor Brenda:

1. God’s love and favor depends on my behavior.
2. All ministers are people of God and can be trusted.
3. Material blessings are a sign of spiritual strength.
4. I can work my way to heaven.
5. Problems in my life are a result of some kind of sin.
6. If it’s not in the Bible it isn’t relevant.
7. A strong enough faith will protect me from problems and pain.
8. God hates sinners, is angry with me, and wants to punish me.
9. Having true faith means waiting for God to help me; doing nothing until He does.
10. More than anything else God wants me to be happy.

About Number 10: How many times have I heard exgay advocates report happiness as a key objective in their personal testimonies?

Katherine Hawker is pastor at Evangelical United Church of Christ in Webster Groves, Missouri.

Writing in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch last month, Hawker contrasted local mainline churches that celebrate World Communion Day to foster Christian unity and charity, with the religious-right lobbies and megachurches down the road that foster division and partisan vitriol within local communities.

I want to build on the unity that I share with others who recognize God’s kingdom as one of justice, peace and inclusive love, not those who use Jesus’ name to preach hate. I no longer trust that a container labeled “Christian” necessarily has contents that I’m willing to share.

Hat tip: Straight, Not Narrow

From BeliefNet author Diana Butler Bass via Straight, Not Narrow:

“Making sexuality a political issue, as much of the Religious Right has done, distracts from a host of other issues, such as poverty, war, and environmental concerns. But it also obscures the fact that Christians agree (as my friend and I do) on many things regarding this intimate part of our lives. We agree that sexuality is a gift from God, that love and commitment are foundational to sexual expression, that marriage is the best vessel for human sexuality, and that authenticity, honesty, fidelity, and mutual regard form the basis of Christian sexual relationships. Sex is, theologically, an ultimate expression of self-giving and surrender, qualities that resemble those in Christian spirituality. As the medieval mystics taught, humanity sexuality is a metaphor for our relationship with God.”

“God is, as scripture tells us, the author of all goodness. God never rejoices in sin, and we know that sin is not the exclusive possession of any political party. The darkness that stalks us is neither Republican nor Democratic. It is part of the human condition, that which makes us all cry out for compassion—and that compassion is an apt starting point for a Christian politics of grace, not partisan vindictiveness.”

Emphasis is mine.

Denver Post columnist Cindy Rodriguez discusses some reasons why followers of Focus on the Family obey the organization’s advice — and vote against their own families.

Rodriguez’s own bias is obviously Democratic.