Michael, I take it that you are a corrections officer. I fully understand what you say about the men who respect you. I have the same respect here in Baltimore and I had the same in Texas when I was a corrections officer. I am a volunteer at the Baltimore City Detention Center and I am also a volunteer Baltimore City Police Department chaplain. I would like to discuss some of these things with you off line. My e-mail address is PrisonMinistry [at] Michael [dash or hyphen, not underscore] Bishop [dot or period] com.
Deacon Michael
]]>“So you, son of man: I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; therefore you shall hear a word from My mouth and warn them for Me. When I say to the wicked, ‘O wicked man, you shall surely die!’ and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. Nevertheless if you warn the wicked to turn from his way, and he does not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your soul.” – Ezekiel 33:7-9.
]]>Wonderful! Pardon me for misunderstanding.
]]>James, you are not a victim. You have a cross, but everyone has a cross and how we that carry that cross (or even whether we do) determines how the Lord can work in our lives, how the cross becomes the gateway to joy.
At the most basic level the moral prohibitions exist to prevent our lives and the culture at large from becoming a train wreck. On a deeper level, they exist as the indicators of the path to deeper self-integration and wholeness that occurs in communion with God who made us and knows us. As we come to know Him self-knowledge begins and can deepen.
The homosexual question has two dimensions, the personal and public. The personal struggle is one thing, the elevation of the personal into the political another. The conflation of the two creates a tremendous amount of confusion (homosexuals relegated to a class, same-sex desire is given ontological status, and so forth) that will not be untangled until the results of this grand experiment to normalize homosexual behavior becomes evident in the larger culture. My guess is that it will take four or five years before people see that the conflation was a grave mistake.
Meanwhile, you have Christ and He will not leave you desolate. The appropriation of the salvation He offers however, requires a transformation of the mind (the nous in Greek) that begins with offering our bodies as a living sacrifice — conforming ourselves to the moral structures that life in Christ requires. St. Paul outlines this in Romans 12: 1-12.
Struggling with sexual temptation can become a means of transformation and sanctification (holiness). This is true across the board, not just for men dealing with homosexual temptation. Pornography is another problem no one ever talks about, especially for young men. The disciplinary practices (fasting, prayer, and so forth) that helps one deal with temptation and arrive at deeper self-knowledge are the same, however.
]]>Scandals involving the sexual abuse of under-age boys by homosexual priests have rocked the Roman Catholic Church. At the same time, defenders of homosexuality argue that youth organizations such as the Boy Scouts should be forced to include homosexuals among their adult leaders. Similarly, the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a homosexual activist organization that targets schools, has spearheaded the formation of “Gay-Straight Alliances” among students. GLSEN encourages homosexual teachers–even in the youngest grades–to be open about their sexuality, as a way of providing role models to “gay” students. In addition, laws or policies banning employment discrimination based on “sexual orientation” usually make no exception for those who work with children or youth.
Many parents have become concerned that children may be molested, encouraged to become sexually active, or even “recruited” into adopting a homosexual identity and lifestyle. Gay activists dismiss such concerns–in part, by strenuously insisting that there is no connection between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children.
However, despite efforts by homosexual activists to distance the gay lifestyle from pedophilia, there remains a disturbing connection between the two. This is because, by definition, male homosexuals are sexually attracted to other males. While many homosexuals may not seek young sexual partners, the evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners. In this paper we will consider the following evidence linking homosexuality to pedophilia:
Pedophiles are invariably males: Almost all sex crimes against children are committed by men.
Significant numbers of victims are males: Up to one-third of all sex crimes against children are committed against boys (as opposed to girls).
The 10 percent fallacy: Studies indicate that, contrary to the inaccurate but widely accepted claims of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, homosexuals comprise between 1 to 3 percent of the population.
Homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses: Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children.
Some homosexual activists defend the historic connection between homosexuality and pedophilia: Such activists consider the defense of “boy-lovers” to be a legitimate gay rights issue.
Pedophile themes abound in homosexual literary culture: Gay fiction as well as serious academic treatises promote “intergenerational intimacy.”
MALE HOMOSEXUALS COMMIT A DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF CHILD SEX ABUSE CASES
Homosexual apologists admit that some homosexuals sexually molest children, but they deny that homosexuals are more likely to commit such offenses. After all, they argue, the majority of child molestation cases are heterosexual in nature. While this is correct in terms of absolute numbers, this argument ignores the fact that homosexuals comprise only a very small percentage of the population.
The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. To demonstrate this it is necessary to connect several statistics related to the problem of child sex abuse: 1) men are almost always the perpetrator; 2) up to one-third or more of child sex abuse cases are committed against boys; 3) less than three percent of the population are homosexuals. Thus, a tiny percentage of the population (homosexual men), commit one-third or more of the cases of child sexual molestation.
Men Account for Almost All Sexual Abuse of Children Cases
An essay on adult sex offenders in the book Sexual Offending Against Children reported:”It is widely believed that the vast majority of sexual abuse is perpetrated by males and that female sex offenders only account for a tiny proportion of offences. Indeed, with 3,000 adult male sex offenders in prison in England and Wales at any one time, the corresponding figure for female sex offenders is 12!”[1]
Kee MacFarlane, et al., writing in Sexual Abuse of Young Children: Evaluation and Treatment report:”The large majority of sexual perpetrators appear to be males (Herman and Hirschman, 1981; Lindholm and Willey, 1983).”[2]
A report by the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children states: “In both clinical and non-clinical samples, the vast majority of offenders are male.”[3]
A study in the Journal of Sex Research states that “pedophilia does not exist, or is extremely rare, in women.”[4]
A Significant Percentage of Child Sexual Abuse Victims are Boys
According to the Journal of Child Psychiatry: “It was commonly believed fifteen years ago that girls were abused in excess of boys in a ratio of about 9 to 1, but contemporary studies now indicate that the ratio of girls to boys abused has narrowed remarkably. . . . The majority of community studies suggest a . . . ratio . . . in the order of 2 to 4 girls to 1 boy.”[5] Another study found that “some authors now believe that boys may be sexually abused as commonly as girls (Groth, 1978; O’Brien, 1980).”[6]
A study of 457 male sex offenders against children in Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy found that “approximately one-third of these sexual offenders directed their sexual activity against males.”[7]
Sexual Abuse of Boys is Underreported
The actual percentage of child sexual abuse victims who are boys very likely exceeds the above estimates. Many researchers echo the view of the Journal of Child Psychiatry study, which refers to the “under-reporting of the incidence and prevalence of sexual abuse in boys.”[8]
Dr. Robert Johnson, in Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, reports: “The vast majority of cases of male sexual molestation is not reported. As a result, these young men keep both the incidents and their feelings to themselves.”[9]
The Department of Justice report on child sexual exploitation explains why the percentage of boy victims is underestimated: “Adolescent boy victims are highly likely to deny certain types of sexual activity. . . . They are embarrassed and ashamed of their behavior and rightfully believe that society will not understand their victimization. . . . No matter what the investigator does, most adolescent boys will deny they were victims.”[10]
The Journal of Child Psychiatry adds: “Boys are usually encultured into an ethos where self-reliance, independence and sexual prowess are valued, while showing hurt or homosexuality are denigrated. . . . This may lead to powerful repression or deletion of the experience, with failure to report.”[11]
Homosexuals Comprise Less than 3 Percent of the Population
Relying upon three large data sets: the General Social Survey, the National Health and Social Life Survey, and the U.S. census, a recent study in Demography estimates the number of exclusive male homosexuals in the general population at 2.5 percent, and the number of exclusive lesbians at 1.4 percent.[12]
A study of the sexual behavior of men in the United States based on the National Survey of Men (a nationally representative sample comprised of 3,321 men aged twenty to thirty-nine, published in Family Planning Perspectives), found that “2 percent of sexually active men aged twenty to thirty-nine . . . had had any same-gender sexual activity during the last ten years. Approximately 1 percent of the men (1.3 percent among whites and 0.2 percent among blacks) reported having had exclusively homosexual activity.[13]
J. Gordon Muir, writing in The Wall Street Journal, discusses a number of studies that have found that homosexuals comprise between 1 to 3 percent of the population.[14]
In a survey of studies on homosexuals in different populations, the Archives of Sexual Behavior reported a random sample of Hawaii State residents interviewed by telephone. The study found “just about 3 percent of males and 1.2 percent of females as having engaged in same-sex or bisexual activity.”[15] However, this relatively higher number is attributed to the fact that the study was not limited to exclusive homosexuals, but included all those who at some time in their lives engaged in same-sex activities.[16]
Homosexual Pedophiles are Vastly Overrepresented in Child Sex Abuse Cases
Homosexual pedophiles sexually molest children at a far greater rate compared to the percentage of homosexuals in the general population. A study in the Journal of Sex Research found, as we have noted above, that “approximately one-third of [child sex offenders] had victimized boys and two-thirds had victimized girls.” The authors then make a prescient observation: “Interestingly, this ratio differs substantially from the ratio of gynephiles (men who erotically prefer physically mature females) to androphiles (men who erotically prefer physically mature males), which is at least 20 to 1.”[17]
In other words, although heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by a ratio of at least 20 to 1, homosexual pedophiles commit about one-third of the total number of child sex offenses.
Similarly, the Archives of Sexual Behavior also noted that homosexual pedophiles are significantly overrepresented in child sex offence cases:
The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2 to 4 percent 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 to 40 percent 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 to 20 times higher among pedophiles.”[18]
The stark imbalance between homosexual and heterosexual child molestationswas confirmed in the Archives of Sexual Behavior study itself, which divided 260 pedophile participants into three groups: “152 heterosexual pedophiles (men with offenses or self-reported attractions involving girls only), 43 bisexual pedophiles (boys and girls), and 65 homosexual pedophiles (boys only).”[19] In other words, 25 percent of the offenders were homosexual pedophiles–or 41 percent if those who molest girls as well as boys are included.
Other studies report an unusually high percentage of child molestations by homosexual pedophiles:
A study on pedophilia in the Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa reported: “According to the literature, findings of a two-to-one ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles have been documented.”[20]
The Journal of Sex Research reports a study that included “199 offenders against female children and 96 offenders against male children. . . . This would indicate a proportional prevalence of 32 percent of homosexual offenders against children.”[21]
A study of male child sex offenders in Child Abuse and Neglect found that fourteen percent targeted only males, and a further 28 percent chose males as well as females as victims, thus indicating that 42 percent of male pedophiles engaged in homosexual molestation.[22]
ARE MEN WHO MOLEST BOYS REALLY ‘HOMOSEXUALS’? Gay Apologists Insist on a Simplistic Stereotype of Pedophilia
Central to the attempts to separate homosexuality from pedophilia is the claim that pedophiles cannot, by definition, be considered homosexuals. Relying upon a questionable methodology[23], the gay advocacy organization Human Rights Campaign published a “Fact Sheet on Sexual Orientation and Child Abuse,” that states: “A sexual abuser who molests a child of the same sex is usually not considered homosexual.”[24]
The basis for this claim is the view that pedophiles who molest boys cannot be considered homosexual if that individual has at any time been married or sexually involved with women.
‘Homosexual Pedophiles’: A Clinical Term
The fact is, however, that the terms “homosexual” and “pedophile” are not mutually exclusive: they describe two intersecting types of sexual attraction. Webster’s Dictionary defines “homosexual” as someone who is sexually attracted to persons of the same sex. “Pedophile” is defined as “an adult who is sexually attracted to young children.” The former definition refers to the gender of the desired sexual object, while the latter refers to the age of the desired sexual object.
A male “homosexual pedophile,” then, is defined as someone who is generally (but not exclusively, see below) sexually attracted to boys, while a female “homosexual pedophile” is sexually attracted to girls.[25]
The term “homosexual pedophile” was first used in the early 20th century by the Viennese psychiatrist Dr. Richard von Krafft -Ebing, who pioneered the systematic study of sexual deviance. Krafft-Ebing described pedophiles as heterosexually, homosexually or bisexually oriented.[26] This division has been accepted by pedophiles themselves,[27] and is well attested in the literature:
A study of child molesters in Behavior Research and Therapy found that “a homosexual and a heterosexual subgroup can be delineated among these offenders.”[28]
The Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy published a study on the same topic, which discussed “the proportional prevalences of heterosexual and homosexual pedophilia.”[29] The study commented on a study that found that “the percentage of the homosexual pedophiles would be 45.8.” Even adjusted downward for exhibitionists, “this would still indicate a much higher percentage (34 percent) of homosexuals among pedophiles than among men who prefer physically mature partners.”[30]
In a review of studies on pedophilia, the Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa concluded: “The findings of previous studies report that pedophiles can be divided into heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles according to their erotic preference. . . . This was confirmed in this recent study.”[31] The article classified homosexual pedophilia into three types: the socially inadequate homosexual pedophile, the intrusive homosexual pedophile, and the undifferentiated homosexual pedophile.[32]
A study of pedophiles in Behavior Research and Therapy concluded: “The second, and perhaps the most important observation we made, is that a homosexual and a heterosexual subgroup can be delineated among these offenders. . . . Categorizing them in this way revealed important differences in the pattern of their sexual preferences.”[33]
The International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology refers to homosexual pedophiles as a “distinct group.” The victims of homosexual pedophiles “were more likely to be strangers, that they were more likely to have engaged in paraphiliac behavior separate from that involved in the offence, and that they were more likely to have past convictions for sexual offences. . . . Other studies [showed a] greater risk of reoffending than those who had offended against girls” and that the “recidivism rate for male-victim offenders is approximately twice that for female-victim offenders.”[34]
Homosexuals and Homosexual Pedophiles Engage in a Wide Variety of Sexual Behavior that Belies Simplistic Categories
Despite this evidence, in their efforts to divorce homosexuality from pedophilia, homosexual apologists insist on a rigid, narrow definition of the terms “homosexual” and “pedophile” that permits no overlap of the terms. They deny that homosexuals are attracted in inordinate numbers to boys. They also claim that pedophiles cannot be classified as “homosexual” if at any time they have had sexual relations with women.
However, such a narrow definition does not do justice to the complex nature of pedophilia. Researchers have long been aware that pedophiles exhibit a wide variety of sexual attractions and behavior–often to draw attention away from their primary lust for boys. A study on sex offenders in the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology notes that “the reason child sexual abusers are successful at remaining undetected is because they do not fit a stereotype.”[35]
The data indicates that both homosexuality and pedophilia are intersecting categories that admit to a wide variety of sexual behavior:
Homosexual Males are Sexually Attracted to Underage Boys
A study in Archives of Sexual Behavior found that homosexual men are attracted to young males. The study compared the sexual age preferences of heterosexual men, heterosexual women, homosexual men, and lesbians. The results showed that, in marked contrast to the other three categories, “all but 9 of the 48 homosexual men preferred the youngest two male age categories,” which included males as young as age fifteen.[36]
In The Gay Report, by homosexual researchers Karla Jay and Allen Young, the authors report data showing that 73 percent of homosexuals surveyed had at some time had sex with boys sixteen to nineteen years of age or younger.”[37]
Conversely, Homosexual Pedophiles are Often Attracted to Adult Males
A study of sex offenders against male children in Behavior Research and Therapy found that male homosexual pedophiles are sexually attracted to “males of all ages.” Compared to non-offenders, the offenders showed “greater arousal” to slides of nude males as old as twenty-four: “As a group, the child molesters responsed [sp] with moderate sexual arousal . . . to the nude males of all ages.”[38]
A study of Canadians imprisoned for pedophilia in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence noted that some of the adult male offenders engaged in homosexual acts with adult males.[39]
Many pedophiles, in fact, consider themselves to be homosexual. A study of 229 convicted child molesters in Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.”[40]
Fr. John Harvey, founder and director of Courage, a support ministry for Catholics who struggle with same-sex attraction, explains that “the pedophile differs from the ordinary homosexual in that the former admires boyishness in the object of his affections, while the latter admires manliness.”[41] However, the categories are not completely separate:
While granting that the majority of homosexuals are not aroused by young boys, the distinction between homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia is not quite absolute. In some cases the interest oscillates between young adolescents and adults, in others between boys and adolescents; in exceptional cases a man may be interested in boys at one time and adults at another.[42]
Many Pedophiles are Attracted to Women, Marry, and Have Children
Gay activists insist that pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality because pedophiles are only sexually interested in children, whereas homosexuals only have sexual relations with adults. We have already seen that this stereotypical view is not correct with regard to homosexuals. There is also abundant evidence demonstrating that, while primarily interested in children, pedophiles nevertheless exhibit a wide variety of sexual behaviors, including relationships with women:
A study in Child Abuse and Neglect found that 48 percent of the offenders either were married or had been married at some time.[43]
The Journal of Interpersonal Violence studied the sexual preferences of male pedophiles who sexually abused children. When they compared the sexual response of the pedophiles with the control group, they found, unexpectedly: “Surprisingly, the two groups did not differ in their response to the nude female stimuli.”[44]
A study in the Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa reported that “most of the middle-aged pedophiles have had significant adult sexual activity.”[45] Fifty-eight percent of the pedophiles in one study had at least one child, while other research indicated that “more than two-thirds of the married pedophiles in their sample had children, with an average of two to three children per subject.”[46]
A report by the Department of Justice addressed the devious stratagems of pedophiles, who will go to great lengths to conceal their true desires: “Preferential sex offenders may be ‘pillars of the community’ and are often described as ‘nice guys.’ They almost always have a means of access to children (for example, through marriage, neighborhood, or occupation.)”[47]
Thus, the evidence shows that homosexual pedophiles cannot be narrowly defined as individuals who are solely attracted to underage boys. In fact there is considerable overlap between homosexuality and pedophilia.
PEDOPHILIA IN GAY CULTURE The Historical Connection between Pedophilia and the Gay Rights Movement
David Thorstad is a homosexual activist and historian of the gay rights movement.[48] He is a former president of New York’s Gay Activists Alliance (GAA), a prototype activist group founded in December 1969. The GAA at its inception opposed age of consent laws, which prohibited adults from having sex with children.[49] Thorstad is also a pedophile and founding member of the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).
Thorstad argues that there is a natural and undeniable connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. He expresses bitterness that the gay rights movement has, in his view, abandoned pedophilia. Thorstad writes: “Boy-lovers were involved in the gay movement from the beginning, and their presence was tolerated. Gay youth groups encouraged adults to attend their dances. . . . There was a mood of tolerance, even joy at discovering the myriad of lifestyles within the gay and lesbian subculture.”[50]
The inaugural issue of the Gay Community News in 1979 published a “Statement to the Gay Liberation Movement on the Issue of Man/Boy Love,” which challenged the movement to return to a vision of sexual liberation. It argued that “the ultimate goal of gay liberation is the achievement of sexual freedom for all–not just equal rights for ‘lesbian and gay men,’ but also freedom of sexual expression for young people and children.”
In the early years there was some reluctance to accept pedophilia, primarily among feminist and lesbian activist groups. In March 1979 the Lesbian Feminist Liberation (LFL) accusing “so-called Man/Boy Lovers” of “attempting to legitimize sex between children and adults. . . . Feminists easily recognize this as the latest attempt to make palatable the sexual exploitation of children.” The coalition went on record as opposing “the sexual abuse of children by heterosexual or homosexual persons.”[51]
Despite this opposition, Thorstad claims that by 1985 homosexual pedophiles had won acceptance within the gay movement. He cites Jim Kepner, then curator of the International Gay and Lesbian Archives in Los Angeles: “A point I’ve been trying to make is that if we reject the boylovers in our midst today we’d better stop waving the banner of the Ancient Greeks, of Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Oscar Wilde, Walt Whitman, Horatio Alger, and Shakespeare. We’d better stop claiming them as part of our heritage unless we are broadening our concept of what it means to be gay today.”[52]
In 1985 NAMBLA was admitted as a member in New York’s council of Lesbian and Gay Organizations as well as the International Gay Association–now the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA). In the mid-1990’s ILGA’s association with NAMBLA and other pedophile groups cost the organization it’s status as a Non-Governmental Organization in the United Nations.
ILGA’s renewed attempt to gain admittance to the UN was rejected again in April 2002 because the organization “did not document that it had purged pedophile groups such as [NAMBLA].” The Washington Times reports that Ishtiag H. Anrabi, Pakistani delegate to the UN Economic and Social Council, expressed concern that ILGA was continuing to be secretive about ties with pedophile groups: “For more than a year, the ILGA has refused to provide documentation or allow review of its membership list to demonstrate that pedophilia groups have been expelled.”[53]
Pedophile Themes Abound in Gay Literature
The late “beat” poet Allen Ginsberg illustrates the seamless connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. Many know Ginsberg as an illustrious “out” homosexual poet: fewer are aware that he was also a pedophile.
Biographer Raymond-Jean Frontain refers to Ginsberg’s publications in both NAMBLA Bulletin and NAMBLA Journal. He discusses how Ginsberg’s biographers failed to discuss his poems that contained pederastic themes:
Although both Shumacher and Barry Miles (Ginsberg’s initial biographer) frankly discuss Ginsberg’s sexual politics, neither refers to his involvement with the controversial North American Man/Boy Love Association. . . . I reread Collected Poems and Ginsberg’s two subsequent collections, surprised by the pattern of references to anal intercourse and to pederasty that emerged.[54]
Ginsberg was one of the first of a growing number of homosexual writers who cater to the fascination with pedophilia in the gay community. Mary Eberstadt, writing in the Weekly Standard, documents how the taboo against sex with children continues to erode–with the impetus coming from homosexual writers.[55]
Revealingly, the examples she provides of pedophilia in current literature come from gay fiction. Eberstadt cites the Village Voice, which states that “Gay fiction is rich with idyllic accounts of ‘intergenerational relationships,’ as such affairs are respectfully called these days.”[56] Other examples of pedophilia-themed gay fiction include:
In the introduction of the “mainstream” homosexual anthology Penguin Book on International Gay Writing, David Leavitt notes matter-of-factly that “Another ‘forbidden’ topic from which European writers seem less likely to shrink is the love of older men for young boys.” Leavitt praises one book with a pedophilic theme included in the anthology as a “coolly assured narrative [which] compels the reader to imagine the world from a perspective he might ordinarily condemn.”[57]
Several texts included in another anthology, The Gay Canon: Great Books Every Gay Man Should Read, feature scenes of man-boy sex. One such book is praised as “an operatic adventure into the realms of love, personality, ambition and art . . . a pure joy to read.” The protagonist is “a pedophile’s dream: the mind of a man in the body of a boy.”[58] Another novel which includes graphic descriptions of sexual violence against boys is said to “[tear] straight to the heart of one of the greatest sources, community-wide, of 1990’s gay angst: What to do with men who love boys?”[59]
Yet another anthology of homosexual fiction, A History of Gay Literature: The Male Tradition, published by Yale University Press, includes “a longish chapter on ‘Boys and Boyhood’ which is a seemingly definitive account of pro-pedophile literary works.”[60] The author appears more concerned with the feelings and emotions of the man than with his boy victim. He explores the question of “whether or not you regard [having sex with boys] as a way of retreating from life or, on the contrary, as a way of engaging with it at its most honest and least corrupted level.”[61]
A significant percentage of books that have appeared on the Gay Men’s Press fiction bestseller list contain pedophilia themes, including:
Some Boys: described as a “memoir of a lover of boys” that “evokes the author’s young friends across four decades.”[62]
For a Lost Soldier: the story of a sexual relationship between a soldier and an eleven-year-old boy, set during World War II.[63]
A Good Start, Considering: yet another story about an eleven-year-old boy (!) who suffers sexual abuse but is rescued by a teenager who “offers him love and affection”[64]
Terre Haute: billed as “A poetic novel of sexual awakening in the American Midwest, tracing an adolescent’s journey from introspection to perilous desire.”
Shiva and Arun: the story of two Indian adolescents who “discover early on the joys of sex.”
Teardrops on My Drum: barefoot kids in 1920’s Liverpool search for “adventure, love and sex.”
Pro-pedophilia Publications
Recent years have seen the appearance of publications that lend a scholarly veneer to the fascination with pedophilia in the gay community. Such publications attempt to make the case for “intergenerational intimacy.” The nation’s largest gay publisher, Alyson Publications, which distributes Daddy’s Roommate and other homosexual books that promote homosexuality to children, publishes books advocating man-boy sex, including:
Paedophilia: The Radical Case, which contains detailed information on how to engage in sexual relations with young boys.[65]
The Age Taboo, another defense of pedophiliawhich claims: “Boy-lovers . . . are not child molesters. The child abusers are . . . parents who force their staid morality onto the young people in their custody.”[66]
The Journal of Homosexuality and Pedophilia
The Journal of Homosexuality is viewed as the premier “mainstream” English-language publication of the gay movement. One prominent editor is John DeCecco, a psychologist at San Francisco State University who also serves on the editorial board of the Dutch pedophile journal Paidika. It is therefore not surprising to see pedophilia promoted on its pages.
In 1990 the Journal of Homosexuality published a series of essays on pedophilia that were eventually published as Male Inter-Generational Intimacy:Historical, Socio-Psychological, and Legal Perspectives, edited by pedophile Edward Brongersma. None of the essays offered any substantive criticism of pedophilia: most blatantly promoted man-boy love as the natural right of homosexuals.
In 1999 Helmut Graupner, wrote an article on pedophilia in the Journal of Homosexuality, in which he claims: “Man/boy and woman/girl relations without doubt are same-sex relations and they do constitute an aspect of gay and lesbian life.” Graupner argues that, as such, consensual sexual relations between adult homosexuals and youths as young as fourteen qualifies as a “gay rights issue.”[67]
The fascination with pedophilia continues to be a cause of concern even within the gay community. Lesbian columnist Paula Martinac, writing in the homosexual newspaper Washington Blade, states:
[S]ome gay men still maintain that an adult who has same-sex relations with someone under the legal age of consent is on some level doing the kid a favor by helping to bring him or her ‘out.’ It’s not pedophilia, this thinking goes–pedophilia refers only to little kids. Instead, adult-youth sex is viewed as an important aspect of gay culture, with a history dating back to ‘Greek love’ of ancient times. This romanticized version of adult-youth sexual relations has been a staple of gay literature and has made appearances, too, in gay-themed films.[68]
Martinac adds that “When some gay men venerate adult-youth sex as affirming while simultaneously declaring ‘We’re not pedophiles,’ they send an inconsistent message to society. . . . The lesbian and gay community will never be successful in fighting the pedophile stereotype until we all stop condoning sex with young people.”[69]
VICTIM’S TURNED VICTIMIZERS: THE CONSEQUENCES OF HOMOSEXUAL CHILD ABUSE
The steadfast denial of the disturbing ties with pedophilia within the homosexual movement is no purely academic matter. Perhaps the most tragic aspect of the homosexual-pedophile connection is the fact that men who sexually molest boys all too often lead their victims into homosexuality and pedophilia. The evidence indicates that a high percentage of homosexuals and pedophiles were themselves sexually abused as children:
The Archives of Sexual Behavior reports: “One of the most salient findings of this study is that 46 percent of homosexual men and 22 percent of homosexual women reported having been molested by a person of the same gender. This contrasts to only 7 percent of heterosexual men and 1 percent of heterosexual women reporting having been molested by a person of the same gender.”[70]
A study of 279 homosexual/bisexual men with AIDS and control patients discussed in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported: “More than half of both case and control patients reported a sexual act with a male by age 16 years, approximately 20 percent by age 10 years.”[71]
Noted child sex abuse expert David Finkelhor found that “boys victimized by older men were over four times more likely to be currently engaged in homosexual activity than were non-victims. The finding applied to nearly half the boys who had had such an experience. . . . Further, the adolescents themselves often linked their homosexuality to their sexual victimization experiences.”[72]
A study in the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology found:”In the case of childhood sexual experiences prior to the age of fourteen, 40 percent (of the pedophile sample) reported that they had engaged ‘very often’ in sexual activity with an adult, with 28 percent stating that this type of activity had occurred ‘sometimes'”[73]
A National Institute of Justice report states that “the odds that a childhood sexual abuse victim will be arrested as an adult for any sex crime is 4.7 times higher than for people . . . who experienced no victimization as children.”[74]
A Child Abuse and Neglect study found that 59 percent of male child sex offenders had been “victim of contact sexual abuse as a child.”[75]
The Journal of Child Psychiatry noted that “there is a tendency among boy victims to recapitulate their own victimization, only this time with themselves in the role of perpetrator and someone else the victim.”[76]
The circle of abuse is the tragic legacy of the attempts by homosexuals to legitimize having sex with boys. For too many boys it is already too late to protect them from those who took advantage of their need for love and attention. All too many later perpetrate the abuse by themselves engaging in the sexual abuse of boys. Only by exposing the lies, insincere denials, and deceptions–including those wrapped in scholastic garb–of those who prey sexually on children, can we hope to build a wall of protection around the helpless children among us.
1. Dawn Fisher, “Adult Sex Offenders: Who are They? Why and How Do They Do It?” in Tony Morrison, et al., eds., Sexual Offending Against Children (London: Routledge, 1994), p. 11.
2. Kee MacFarlane, et al., Sexual Abuse of Young Children: Evaluation and Treatment (New York: The Guilford Press, 1986), p. 9.
3. John Briere, et al.,eds., The APSAC Handbook on Child Maltreatment (Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, 1996), pp. 52, 53.
4. Kurt Freund, et al., “Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality,” Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 10 (Fall 1984): 198; See also Freund, K, and Watson, R. J., “The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Paedophiles among Sex Offenders against Children: an Exploratory Study,” Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 18 (1992): 34.
5. Bill Watkins and Arnon Bentovim, “The Sexual Abuse of Male Children and Adolescents: A Review of Current Research,” Journal of Child Psychiatry 33 (1992); in Byrgen Finkelman, Sexual Abuse (New York: Garland Publishing, 1995), p. 300.
6. MacFarlane, p. 9.
7. Kurt Freund, et al., “Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality,” Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 10 (1984): 197. “The proportional prevalence of offenders against male children in this group of 457 offenders against children was 36 percent.” See also, Kurt Freund, et al., “Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Erotic Age Preference,” “Approximately one-third of these individuals had victimized boys and two-thirds had victimized girls. This finding is consistent with the proportions reported in two earlier studies,” p. 107.
8. Watkins and Bentovim, p. 315.
9. Robert L. Johnson, “Long-term Effects of Sexual Abuse in Boys,” Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality (September 1988): 38.
10. “Understanding and Investigating Child Sexual Exploitation,” (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 1997), p. 12.
11. Watkins and Bentovim, p. 302.
12. Dan Black, et al., “Demographics of the Gay and Lesbian Population in the United States: Evidence from Available Systematic Data Sources,” Demography 37 (May 2000): 141.
13. John O. G. Billy, et al., “The Sexual Behavior of Men in the United States,” Family Planning Perspectives 25 (March/April 1993): 58.
14. J. Gordon Muir, “Homosexuals and the 10 percent Fallacy,” Wall Street Journal (March 31, 1993).
15. Milton Diamond, “Homosexuality and Bisexuality in Different Populations,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 22 (1993):300.
16. Ibid. Significantly, a number of studies that were surveyed, and which skewed the overall percentages of homosexuals upwards, included such vague definers as those having had “any homosexual body contact.” In contrast, one study that was limited to self-identifying homosexuals found that less than 2 percent of the male respondents considered their “sexual orientation” to be homosexual, p. 293.
17. Freund, “Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Erotic Age Preference,” p. 107. In this and previous studies, Freund claims that homosexuals are no more likely than heterosexuals to be attracted to children (p. 115). However, Silverthorn, et al., mentions the limitations of studies by Freund and others: “Studies of homosexual male preferences are also limited. . . . The Freund et al.(1973) study was possibly compromised because the homosexual men used in the study were selected to be sexually attracted to adults, but not teenaged, males. The Bailey et al. (1994) study was limited in that it did not present participants with objective stimuli but simply asked participants to report what age of sexual partner they preferred . . . the Jankowiak et al. (1992) study . . . was limited in two ways: the homosexual male participants had a limited age range of ‘middle-aged professionals’ and the stimuli presented to participants were also of a limited age range (‘university to middle-aged’).” Silverthorn attempted to correct these deficiencies, and in his study found that homosexuals “preferred younger partners than those who preferred female partners”–in cluding those as young as fifteen. Zebulon A. Silverthorne and Vernon L. Quinsey, “Sexual Partner Age Preferences of Homosexual and Heterosexual Men and Women,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 29 (February 2000): 67-76.
18. Ray Blanchard, et al., “Fraternal Birth Order and Sexual Orientation in Pedophiles,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 29 (2000): 464.
19. Ibid., p. 471.
20. John M. W. Bradford, et al., “The Heterogeneity/Homogeneity of Pedophilia,” Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa 13 (1988): 225. Elsewhere the study notes: “Researchers have variously estimated the incidence of homosexual pedophilia between 19 percent and 33 percent of reported molestations,” p. 218.
21. Freund, “Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality,” p. 197.
22. Michele Elliott, “Child Sexual Abuse Prevention: What Offenders Tell Us,” Child Abuse and Neglect 19 (1995): 581.
23. The fact sheet discusses a study by Carole Jenny, et al., which claims that only 2 of 269 child molesters could be identified as gay or lesbian. Carole Jenny, et al., “Are Children at Risk for Sexual Abuse by Homosexuals?” Pediatrics 94 (July 1994): 41-44. However, the Jenny study utilized an atypical research technique: the reported child molesters themselves were not interviewed. Instead, the researchers relied upon the subjective opinions of “informants” who accompanied the child victim to the medical clinic. The qualifications for such “informants” to determine the sexual behavior of the accused molester were not established. However, once it is “determined” beforehand that pedophiles who molest boys cannot be considered gay or homosexual if they have had sexual relations with women, it is a foregone conclusion that few if any of the pedophiles -who often have girlfriends, are married, and have children – will be labeled homosexual. The Jenny study used this narrow profile despite the fact that the study itself found that 22 percent of the perpetrators were of the same sex as the victim. In these cases the molesters clearly engaged in homosexual sexual molestation.
24. “Fact Sheet on Sexual Orientation and Child Abuse,” Human Rights Campaign (2001):available at: http://hrc.grassroots.com/family/soandchildabusefact/. The fact sheet discusses a study by Carole Jenny, et al., which claims that only 2 of 269 child molesters could be identified as gay or lesbian. Carole Jenny, et al., “Are Children at Risk for Sexual Abuse by Homosexuals?” pp. 41-44. However, the Jenny study utilized an atypical research technique. The reported child molesters themselves were not interviewed; instead, the researchers relied upon the subjective opinions of “informants” who accompanied the child victim to the medical clinic.
25. Note that the well-accepted definition of “child” as someone between infancy and the age of maturation is employed here.
26. Bradford, p.218.
27. “[Pedophiles] can be of either sex or any [sexual] orientation, i.e., homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual.” Paedophilia:Some Questions and Answers (London: Paedophilic Informational Exchange, 1978); quoted in Seth L. Goldstein, “Investigating Child Sexual Exploitation:Law Enforcement’s Role,” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 53 (January 1984): 23.
28. W. L. Marshall, et al., “Sexual Offenders against Male Children: Sexual Preferences,” Behavior Research and Therapy 26 (March 1988): 390.
29. Freund, “Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality,” p.194.
30. Ibid., p. 197.
31. Bradford, et al., p. 217.
32. Ibid., pp. 218, 219.
33. Marshall, p. 390.
34. James Bickley and Anthony R. Beech, “Classifying Child Abusers: Its Relevance to Theory and Clinical Practice,” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 45 (2001): 56.
35. Krisin A. Danni, et al., “An Analysis of Predicators of Child Sex Offender Types Using Presentence Investigation Reports,” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 44 (2000): 491.
36. Zebulon A. Silverthorne and Vernon L. Quinsey, “Sexual Partner Age Preferences of Homosexual and Heterosexual Men and Women,” p.73.
37. Karla Jay and Allen Young, The Gay Report: Lesbians and Gay Men Speak Out about Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles (New York: Summit Books, 1979), p. 275
38. Marshall, “Sexual Offenders against Male Children: Sexual Preferences,” p. 383.
39. W. L. Marshall, et al., “Early Onset and Deviant Sexuality in Child Molesters,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 6 (1991): 323-336.
40. W. D. Erickson, “Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 17 (1988): 83.
41. John F. Harvey, O.S.F.S., The Homosexual Person: New Thinking in Pastoral Care (San Francisco: Ignatius Press:1987): 221
42. Ibid., p. 219.
43. Elliott, p. 581.
44. Marshall, “Sexual Offenders against Male Children: Sexual Preferences,” p. 383.
45. Bradford, p. 219.
46. Bradford, p. 224.
47. “Understanding and Investigating Child Sexual Exploitation,” p. 5.
48. Thorstad is co�’author, with John Lauritsen, of The early homosexual rights movement (1864�’1935) (New York: Times Change Press, 1974).
49. David Thorstad, “May/Boy Love and the American Gay Movement” Journal of Homosexuality 20 (1990): 252.
50. Ibid., p. 253.
51. Ibid., p. 258.
52. Ibid., p. 266.
53. George Archibald, “U.N. Group Keeps Ban on Gay Lobby,” Washington Times (May 1, 2002).
54. Raymond-Jean Frontain, “The Works of Allen Ginsberg,” Journal of Homosexuality 34 (1997): 109.
55. Mary Eberstadt, “‘Pedophilia Chic’ Reconsidered” The Weekly Standard 6 (January 8, 2001).
56. Ibid., p. 21.
57. Ibid., p. 22.
58. Ibid.
59. Ibid.
60. Ibid., p. 23.
61. Ibid. Emphasis added by Eberstadt.
62. Ibid., p. 23.
63. Ibid.
64. From the Gay Men’s Press website: http://www.gmppubs.co.uk/cgi-bin/web_store/web_store.cgi
65. Tom O’Carroll, Paedophilia: The Radical Case (Boston:Alyson Publications, 1982).
66. Daniel Tsang, editor, The Age Taboo: Gay Male Sexuality, Power, and Consent (Boston: Alyson Publications ; London : Gay Men’s Press, 1981), p. 144.
67. Helmut Graupner, “Love Versus Abuse: Crossgenerational Sexual Relations of Minors: A Gay Rights Issue?” Journal of Homosexuality 37 (1999): 23, 26.
68. Paula Martinac, “Mixed Messages on Pedophilia Need to be Clarified, Unified,” Washington Blade (March 15, 2002).
69. Ibid.
70. Marie, E. Tomeo, et al., “Comparative Data of Childhood and Adolescence Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual Persons,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 30 (2001): 539.
71. Harry W. Haverkos, et al., “The Initiation of Male Homosexual Behavior,” The Journal of the American Medical Association 262 (July 28, 1989): 501.
72. Watkins and Bentovim, p. 316.
73. Gary A. Sawle, Jon Kear-Colwell, “Adult Attachment Style and Pedophilia: A Developmental Perspective,” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 45 (February 2001):6.
74. Cathy Spatz Widom, “Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse – Later Criminal Consequences,” Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse Series:NIJ Research in Brief, (March 1995): 6.
75. Elliott, p. 582.
76. Watkins, p. 319. Watkins mentions several studies confirming that between 19 percent and 61 percent of male sex abusers had previously been sexually abused themselves.
See also:
Is There a Link Between Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse?
]]>I think, Father, one of our more immediate concerns is that the Orthodox Church witness a moral message to the culture, for moral paths save souls, while immoral ones lead them to perdition. A moral life is requisite for personhood in CHRIST, for proper Eucharistic witness, while an immoral life or one which embraces homosexual relations as valid lifestyle choices precludes such a life a CHRIST. Thus, the Church has no choice but to engage the topic and the culture to witness CHRIST for the sake of the salvation of souls.
As far as the Orthodox Church’s role in promoting morality is concerned, thus, it seems to be Orthodox witness and cultural presence and immediate action, which includes political action. For immorality and license condemns souls while it is the Church’s role to save them. If there ever were reasons for sermons and processions with the Cross, they are now.
So there are some masking homosexual propaganda in the language of restraint and of “pieties and spiritualizations” they will call “obscurantism” in any other context. While I think it is clear that part of the point of spirituality is to intensify ones witness to a culture languishing in immorality.
Any court or psychiatric inquisition of Orthodoxy or threat of it is just a rather banal and not so subtle threat of religious persecution. We need not be silenced or cowed in the slightest by the heterophobes. The Occupy Orthodox Net crowd has spoken up. Soon to be amplified on HuffPo, Koz, and G-I-G-O MSNBC…
]]>Anyone who says that the Orthodox Church has no place in swaying the politics run amuck in the nation we live is a person who is advocating nominalism in the place of the presence of the Orthodox mission in North America and advancing that immorality become worse as public policy.
]]>Fr. Alexander,
εὐλόγειte ὁ κύριος!
[The seeming “immediacy” of responses comes from the tedium of analyzing statistical data on the computer and email messages – frequently “urgent”, at least to the sender – pop-up prominently!]
As you well know, I am aware of your devoted mission and have nothing but respect for your public positions and you personally. Nevertheless, how in heaven’s name would I, a generally well-read Orthodox Christian – and as I have mentioned on many occasions – especially sensitive to the both legal arguments that would eventually wend their way to the SCOTUS because they sourced in CA, ever have known of your writings in Stars & Stripes had you not, several years later, made them know here? How would you know I went to the Gay Pride parade here in San Diego (“went” in the sense it was transpiring at the end of my block!) and ran into Gavin Newsome who, at the time, was running for Mayor of San Francisco and seemed to “aspire” to be governor (he is currently Lt. Governor). When he shook my hand I asked him if he was familiar with the moral teachings of the Orthodox Church regarding same-sex marriage. I was shouted down and his people moved him right along. I recall you noting that comments you received in regard to your messages in Stars & Stripes were unrepeatable, and I join you in the sentiment.
My point is, we, you and I, can and must witness, and witness in a manner (you more than me!) “as the Master would do so himself,” which is the way of “economy,” dialoging and accepting individuals where they are, and proceeding from there, “for those who would have ears to hear.” Anyone can hang out the sign or wear the tee-shirt, “You are an abomination & what you are doing leads to damnation.” I was shocked at the outrageous comments on another site that Archbishop Benjamin of the OCA diocese of the West “had conversation with two transgendered women.” My thought was, “If not a bishop of the Church, then whom?” And likewise, it brings to mind the texts of the full Order of Confession, that instructs, “Christ stands here with us invisibly… withhold noting lest you leave the Physician unhealed.” Always, some will revolt & reject, but as the Apostles discovered, “πολλοὶ μὲν οὖν ἐξ αὐτῶν ἐπίστευσαν!” (“Many of them believed!” Acts 17:12)
On the other hand, you and I, even in excersizing to the best of our abilities our mission, are not the moral authority of the Church. God has not set us aside for this purpose, nor have we been elected, consecrated, nor anointed. This is the role of the Bishops. And when I insist that the issuing of “statements,” encyclicals, and even “sorrowful epistles” is essential, it is insufficient, and I believe the “fruit” of this absence of a voice of moral authority is obvious. Each and every time a Bishop vests and the Dikiri & Trikiri are placed in his hands, the Deacon exclaims: “Let your light so shine [and the Greek λαμψάτω τὸ φῶς carries an “expectancy of brilliancy”] before men.” This is a major moral issue of our day, and it seems to me we cannot be satisfied simply with statements.
]]>We can do without the cynical “white horses” metaphor.
Dr. S, your contention (“In the interim between the arguments and the announcements, it is fair to the say the Orthodox said nothing.”) is demonstrably false. ROCOR’s Diocese of Chicago and Mid-America under Archbishop Alypy and Bishop Peter released a strong but compassionate statement on March 29, 2013, only two days after the U.S. Supreme Court heard the second of the two cases concerning homosexual “marriage.” (See http://www.synod.com/synod/eng2013/20130409_enchicagoresolution.html). Further, numerous Orthodox clergy and laity had been working “behind the scenes” before the SCOTUS decisions in June.
On this blog and elsewhere I have described a number of public proclamations by Orthodox bishops and other Orthodox clergy in response to the extraordinary reach of the radical homosexualist movement into every venerable institution in America that was once a bastion of traditional morality: the workplace, the family, the churches, the armed forces, the Boy Scouts, and now even marriage. For example, my own guest editorial in the August 24, 2010, issue of Stars & Stripes, the popular military newspaper, highlighted Metropolitan Jonah’s powerful and prophetic missive to the Armed Forces Chaplains Board in July 2009, warning that, if repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) law led to infringements on the liberty and conscience of Orthodox military chaplains, he would withdraw his official endorsement of the OCA chaplains, thereby removing them from military service. (See http://www.stripes.com/chaplains-in-no-win-situation-on-don-t-ask-1.115780)
The greater issue here, as is too often the case, is whether the Orthodox faith community has a divine commission to witness both prophetically and pastorally from the perspective of Orthodox moral tradition to the wider American society, including our public officials and other public institutions. I have devoted some 35 years of my life as an Orthodox moral theologian to that mission. I suggest with considerable regret, however, that some, perhaps many Orthodox leaders in this country, both ordained and lay, have adopted a very different approach to the question, which militates against such a public moral witness.
]]>Pardon me, Mr. Bauman for the lack of clarity. I was, in fact, agreeing with you!
]]>Michael, I’m not sure exactly why you address your comment to me. I have never said anything against the Church having a social role. Quite the contrary. I just don’t see much good that comes from that social role being partisan politics.
As to you oft cited request that sermons be preached on the subject, in my parish they are. Still the Bishops need to lead by “rightly dividing the truth” which, IMO, the Antiochian bishops did in this case and the convention followed their lead. It is indeed up to us, the faithful, to do more, to activate that truth and live it.
I believe you are quite right in your observation that governmental action is a dead course. By the time the issue became one of law, fairness and civil rights, we had already lost that battle. That does not absolve us from the task of continuing to be active in the truth.
From my perspective the social and corporate activating of the Church begins in the Liturgy, continues through the proclamation of the Gospel into the faithful living the life of the Church regardless of the way of the world. Giving alms (money, care and mercy) to those in need; adhering to the teachings of the Church on such matters as marriage, sexuality and abortion; pastoring appropriately to those who have violated Church teaching and practice in these areas so that each person has the best opportunity for healing and restoration. The statement of the Antiochian Convention is part of that process. At the very least it lets our people and the world know such blasphemy as ‘gay marriage’ will not be part of the Church.
The pressure to accept such evil will not abate because of the statement, quite the contrary I suspect. For it to hold, we, the faithful, will have to uphold it in our hearts as well as in our actions. A sincere and deep devotion to the intercessions of the Theotokos is critical here, IMO.
]]>Where does your responsibility as a “webmaster of the public square” end and the duty of Orthodox pastor begin? I just celebrated the 40th day memorial of a most dear friend of mine, the son of a ROCOR priest, who died from complications of an accident, having been rendered virtually helpless by this phenomenon of “post-polio syndrome.” He and one other Russian child contracted polio in their community in NY because uneducated, ignorant, and arrogant advized them, as self-proclaimed “authorities,” not to vaccinate their children.
Let me be on the record as saying that there are times to debate, to harangue, to even battle, but as someone trained as a physician, I am telling you that you are allowing a very dangerous precedent to be set. I’m no prophet, but when “bells ring,” I listen to them. And so should you and your Board of Directors. For as long as I live, I will never forget the two days I witnessed one of the best and most talented psychiatrist I know humiliated mercilessly by a plaintiff’s attorney, saved only by his meticulous documentation and copious notes. In other words, he did the right thing.
]]>There are instances where homosexuality occurs as a hormonal imbalance due to stressors exacted upon the mother while gestating a fetus. That is the newest science to explain the minority of instances of homosexuality. GOD did not make you gay. In any event, sexuality itself is learned behavior and is under our control. Celibacy is an option, and is something the Church blesses.
The sin of sodomy, however, is a great affliction which perverts human sexuality and depersonalizes eros to the condemnation of the sinner. For centuries sodomy has been understood by the Church, and by Christendom, as a “sin that cries to heaven”. There is no “monogamous”, homosexual alternative which can morally unite one with CHRIST. To argue so is to say that CHRIST blesses sodomy. HE does not. Reject anyone who would tell you otherwise. All such behavior leads to ones condemnation.
In many cases, when altar boys and others have been molested by pedophiles, the male victims have developed homosexual tendencies, if not full blown homosexuality. In all instances, homosexuality is learned behavior. While in most, homosexual orientation is a matter of choice. It can be treated. It can be healed in CHRIST.
As far as the “merits” of homosexuality over pedophilia. Seems like arguing the merits of schizophrenia versus theopathic psychosis. Pedophilia tends to be another type of homosexuality in most instances. Orthodox consideration of these afflictions, sins, is predicated on the moral aspects of personhood in exercising eros in healthy, marital sexual relationships, where eros in its appetitive love is transfigured by the married couple into hunger for CHRIST and holiness by a Eucharistic life in CHRIST in true personhood. Homosexual or pedophile sexual afflictions can not serve this role in CHRIST for they are repugnant to HIM and, thus, depersonalizing, demonic in effect and totally destructive of human identity.
Thus, I can honestly advise you to ignore any resources representing a dishonest take on homosexuality while advocating the gay agenda, whether nominally terming themselves “Orthodox” or not.
Yes, the moral thing to do is to love those who are afflicted, and offer them prayers and treatment, for ultimately, sin, and a grievous sin such as homosexuality, is a matter of salvation.
The spiritual significance of what is moral is that which embodies a behavior which helps one become a person in CHRIST. That which is immoral estranges one from CHRIST and fragments ones personhood in sin and estrangement from life and love. Thus, the Church can only, if it is true to itself and the Gospel, witness to the world that which is moral. Such witness is a moral imperative, especially at a time such as this.
I would refer you to the Life of St. Niphon, Patriarch of Constantinople, and urge you to adopt him as a patron to help you in understanding this affliction and how it can be overcome in an Orthodox context.
]]>I believe that if you look around this site, you can find my personal opinion as to what you write, & I leave it at that.
My only advice is that this is the worst possible place to pursue answers. The Google School of Psychiatry is as foolish as it is dangerous. Contact Fr. Hans privately if you really seek direction. To be honest, Mr. Bradshaw, sometimes I wonder. In any case, I say a prayer for you.
]]>I was personally never molested. I had a strong yet attentive and caring father. My mother is a gem. Why I knew as early as the second grade that I was drawn towards other guys is anyone’s guess. Most of my gay male friends have the same story. I can assure you that I tried for years to become heterosexual (even though part of me really didn’t believe it was an issue). I tried prayer, daily Masses, confession, even self-cutting as a form of “aversion therapy” (and I still have the scars and burn marks on my arm as a reminder of that part of my life). It didn’t make it go away. In fact, it made it worse. I also became a very big liar to cover all of this up. It wasn’t hard as there’s nothing effeminate about me. I’m built like a college wrestler.
So what do to with all of this? I don’t know. Life is hard enough without trying to make yourself into something you’re not. It doesn’t help to think that the only moral option for you as you age (and life becomes even harder) is to come home to an empty house (save for a pet cat and reruns of bad tv sitcoms to keep you company).
So … I try for monogamous long-term relationships. It requires a great deal of patience and self-sacrifice yet gives you a certain sustenance to be able to deal with the trials of work, health, etc. Is it moral? I think so. I know what the Bible says, but the Bible says a lot of things most of us reject if we take it at face value. Do we really believe that abused women who divorce their husbands are sinning? I don’t, nor can I really force myself to believe it. There’s a lot the Bible does NOT say that it should have. Is it a sin for a 35-year-old male to marry a 12-year-old female? Who knows. It seems to be fundamentally wrong … why I can’t say. A passage on this would have been nice, no?
Ultimately, my hope is that life is about sacrificing ourselves for others and that we leave things in a little better condition than they were when we came into the world. Anything else is beyond my capacity, either intellectually or humanly.
God bless.
]]>