FOOD FOR THOUGHT	        THE GAY TRAP
	Fr Francis Marsden, 22.3.87

Last year Manchester City Council gave £43,000 to Lesbian link and the gay centre, and now plans to spend £250,000 on building a centre for lesbians. The Greater London Council has given well over £1 million in grants for similar purposes. Harlingen Borough (North London) has a Gay and Lesbian Unit with a staff of six on salaries of £17,000 each, to promote homosexuality. Two of them work on “heterosexism awareness”, training other council employees especially those in education and the youth service to accept and promote “gay is good”.

“Heterosexism” is the belief that male—female relationships are normal, and that homosexual relationships are not. It is classed with racism and sexism as an unjust discrimination, and oppressive ideology. We must all now be indoctrinated to accept homosexuality as equal to, if not better than, marriage.

Thus, it becomes increasingly difficult to say openly that homosexuality is abnormal. Dutch ‘gays’ are trying to sue Cardinal Simonis of Utrecht for precisely such a statement. The Pope will face major ‘gay’ demonstrations when he visits San Francisco later this year because he is heterosexist i.e. he teaches that man and woman are created for each other in a way that two members of the same sex are not.

Now I am not out to attack those who suffer unwillingly from a homosexual condition or temptations, and are trying to live chastely. But I am alarmed at the militant gay ideology, which tries to spread homosexuality as a way of life, and is being actively and publicly encouraged. It is based on a completely false picture of human sexuality. By misinformation, it may tempt the weak into experimentation and perverted sexuality, to the detriment of their souls and personalities.

There are two strands in my argument, from Revelation and from science. Scripture (Genesis) teaches that man and woman are made for each other in fruitful love. It never mentions homosexual acts except to condemn them: as punishable by death (Lev. 20:13) and meriting exclusion from the Kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9) St Paul warns of the anger of God falling upon those “who have given up natural intercourse to be consumed with passion for each other, men doing shameless things with men and receiving an appropriate reward for their perversion.” Like it or not, that is God’s judgment.

In comparison with this the document “Pastoral Care of Homosexuals” (Rome 1986) is comparatively mild when it describes homosexual acts as “intrinsically disordered” and able in no case to be approved of. When homosexuals “engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.”

What do medicine and psychology say? Until 1973 psychologists worldwide treated homosexuality as a disorder. Consult any psychology textbook to see that. However, in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association deleted homosexuality from its list of illnesses, not as a result of careful scientific analysis and research, but because of intense agitation and political manoeuvres by the U.S. National Gay Task Force.

This redefinition split the psychiatric profession. It gave influential international backing to the gay rights campaign, and its claims that homosexuality is good, normal, unalterable, a sexual right and something everyone should be free to try.

However, a closer reading of the scientific literature reveals that homosexual intercourse is medically harmful, and that homosexual relationships are unstable. In a heterosexual marriage, man and wife complement each other, physically, emotionally and spiritually. Each partner relates to the opposite sex, to a person very different from themselves. Two distinct persons, united in love. “The very differences are a source of joy. If Romeo has, a deep bass voice whilst Juliet is a soprano, they need not envy each other. They can sing in harmony. But in the homosexual encounter such differences and complementarity are missing.” (Kiely)

Can we as Christians offer hope or healing to those who find themselves constitutionally homosexual, through none of their own fault? Can we understand their condition better? Some have argued that they ought to be allowed to live together with their companion, and express their love in a way that includes genital sex. The Church forbids this: the sexual act must be male-female, within marriage and open to procreation.

The psychological nature of such homosexual unions seems. To be narcissistic (love of oneself reflected in another) rather than self-transcendent, love of another who is quite different from oneself. Each partner feels incomplete. Together they pretend to be one person, a ‘make-believe’. Each uses the other in a vain attempt to complete his own personality. Such behaviour may be driven by urgent needs but has little to do with love.

The root cause of this orientation may lie back in childhood. The psychologist Bieber interviewed over 1000 male homosexuals. Not one had felt adequate love or respect from his father. Often too the mother was over-close to her son, preferring son to husband. This lack of fatherly love and attention plus a suppressed hatred of women due to smother-love, can predispose a young man to seek male attention and identity in same-sex relationships. It is a form of ego-defensive behaviour, an attempt to feel complete by using another person of the same sex.

Fr. Kiely S.J., psychotherapist and moral theologian at the Gregorian, Rome, states that in his clinical experience, the homosexual usually suffers personality problems - insecurity, a craving for attention and reassurance, an over-sensitivity to suspected insult or neglect. On-going homosexual
relationships frequently involve intense jealousy, hurtfulness and self-concern.  “At times. One gets the impression that such a relationship is being carried on mainly on the basis of a cycle of offences and reconciliations, as if the happiness or peace of either partner could bring the relationship to an end, and so cannot be tolerated.” The relationship, he says, seems to “lack a natural foundation”.

Is there hope of healing? Yes. Contrary to gay lib propaganda, homosexuality is often reversible. In a classic study, the psychologist Bieber reported a large shift towards heterosexuality in 65% of 72 patients whom he treated. He argues “a heterosexual shift is a possibility for all homosexuals who are strongly motivated to change.” Masters and Johnson (1979) likewise indicate that 66% of the 67 homosexuals they treated achieved a long-term reversal.

Moreover, “nothing is impossible to God,” (Luke 1:37). God came especially to seek out the lost. The British Medical Association (1955) published case histories of 14 homosexuals totally released from their homosexual tendencies through religious conversion. The American Journal of Psychiatry (Dec. 1980) reports 8 homosexuals completely cured through a Christian ministry to gays.

Those who genuinely wish to change stand a good chance of being healed. They need our prayer, friendship and encouragement. “As in any conversion from evil”, says the Roman document, “the abandonment of homosexual activity will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God’s liberating grace.”

However, for public bodies, to promote homosexuality is like pushing drugs. To encourage the ‘gay’ lifestyle is like telling alcoholics to keep on drinking. It might satisfy them, but it pushes them along the road to destruction. The militant gay propaganda should be openly resisted. It is inspired by the father of lies.  

FOOD FOR THOUGHT
Fr Francis Marsden

The Convenor of Merseyside Quest accuses me of being irresponsible in urging homosexuals to seek a cure for their condition. He asks for a “more responsible perspective” and goes on to dismiss the published scientific literature which I quoted.

I used the scientific literature precisely to contradict the prevailing myth that homosexuality is untreatable and irreversible - a myth, which is false, and denies: the hope of healing, normal married life and parenthood to many trapped in homosexual behaviour patterns.

Unable to contradict or “quibble with” scientific evidence directly, Convenor supposes that all those who were healed by psychiatric means were “driven by unbearable pressure from their family or other social influences to submit themselves to whatever form of therapy was available regardless of the cost to personal happiness and dignity.” What on earth are the grounds for this allegation? Is it just an attempt to discredit scientific findings, which Convenor does not like? Does he think it is wrong to encourage homosexuals to undergo therapy in order to normalise their sexuality?

Moreover, why should a conversion from homosexuality to heterosexuality be at the cost of personal happiness and dignity? To be cured of an intrinsically disordered condition is surely more likely to lead to a great increase in personal happiness, dignity and self-respect.

I backed up my discussion with accurate references and published scientific evidence. Convenor does not. He merely refers to “current opinion” and the “overwhelming view of the medical profession today.” Of course, there are doctors who do not believe in any objective moral standards, and follow the humanist line on homosexuality, abortion, sterilization, contraception etc. But I would refer Convenor to the recently published article “Pastoral Care of the Homosexual -A Psychological Note”, by Fr Bartholemew Kiely, reprinted from L’Osservatore Romano in Briefing (6 March 1987, fl, 5, pp.75—80) and the copious. references to the medical and psychological literature quoted therein.

Given scientific findings that two-thirds of the homosexuals willing to undergo treatment in the Bieber and Masters & Johnson studies were cured to a substantial degree, it is neither “unchristian nor irresponsible” to urge homosexuals to hope realistically for a cure. Those who really do want a cure seem to stand a good chance. Those who do not really want a cure, but prefer to keep indulging their homosexual instincts, are obviously unlikely to be healed.

In Autumn 1986 a retreat course was held at St Mary’s, Kinnoull, Perth, “On Healing the Homosexual”, given by a lady, Leanne Payne, who has specialized in this ministry. Contrary to popular opinion, she reports that it is not difficult to heal the homosexual condition, I presume by prayer for inner healing and conversion, and some psychological insight. I will try to find out more details, about her work. Certainly in the literature coming from the charismatic renewal across the different denominations, I have come across testimonies of ex-homosexuals who have found release and healing. These are in addition to the previous reports I cited.

With regard to gay sex education in schools, I cannot agree with Convenor that “no amount of promoting would bring about a change in sexual orientation.” What I fear is that the pro-homosexual books and audio-visual material produced by the Health Education Council and the Inner London Education Authority, will encourage teenagers to experiment. Experiment starts a habit. Sexual habits are difficult to break, and can lead to long-term practice,

Within the Church there are many different tasks to be done. It is beautiful when Mother Teresa’s nuns care for AIDS victims in New York and say “be do not judge. We help them to die in peace with God.” It is certainly necessary to have Catholic groups like Quest giving pastoral care to homosexuals” and, may I add, encouraging them to seek healing by prayer, Confession and the Sacraments, along with psychological means: if available.
	
But again, parents can rightfully fully expect the Church to speak out against moral perversions foisted upon their teenage children by local education authorities or the state. They are right to demand clear guidelines, backed up by reason and Revelation. While being compassionate to the . Of homosexuals, and helping them to live by Christian moral norms, pastors must also teach the heterosexual the population not to be misled by gay propaganda. This majority can rightfully expect the Church prophetically to denounce immoral and pagan practices, which threaten the integrity and happiness of their youngsters in particular.

Every word of my article was true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. How can Convenor expect me to change or modify what I wrote, when he provides not one single new piece of evidence for me to consider, beyond the obvious fact that he personally disagrees with me, for reasons which at root, he has not made clear.

I know that the truth sometimes: hurts. But remember, “The hand that hurts is the hand that heals.” Our opinions have to be submitted to the surgery of truth, and the diseased and inaccurate tissue cut away. To speak the truth is neither irresponsible nor unchristian. Masking the truth is.

Sadly, in one sense Convenor proves my point for me. It is becoming increasingly difficult to state publicly that homosexuality is abnormal. Even a Catholic priest in a Catholic newspaper is shouted down as unchristian and irresponsible.