Yet for men such as myself who lost their heterosexual desires long ago and fixated involuntarily on their own gender, the ancient solution that Christ seemed to recommend quite openly seems brilliantly hopeful and regenerative. Many modern sex offenders have taken this solution and put a stop to the record in their heads that they otherwise could not turn off. Convicted child molester Larry Don McQuay of San Antonio, TX, is a good example.

For men who knew they were trapped and enslaved by their sexual desires, Christ’s merciful and scientific solution was practiced so commonly in the early church that the first canon of the First Council of Nicaea of 325 AD addressed it. Biblical commentators need to be careful to point out that Nicaea’s prohibition against this ancient solution was directed only at clergy–and the reasons for that are still not clear. The first canon of Nicaea is completely silent about the practice among lay Christians. I took the cure in 2007 and have no regrets.

Incidentally, the practice greatly insures longevity as it does with animals. Therefore, any man can say that the took the cure for “medical reasons” although it is very sad that spiritual commentators would put medical reasons ahead of spiritual ones. Jesus Christ clearly exhibited no such inversion of moral values in Matthew 5: 29 & 30 and elsewhere: “For it more profitable for you that one of your members perish than for your whole body to be cast into hell.”

Understanding the teachings of Christ regarding this, one of his most difficult teachings, also sheds much light on His Mercy and Wisdom. It also proves how much more scientific Christ was in his day than we are in our day.

“To sunder sexuality from procreation as the LGBT community has done is to estrange oneself from the primordial rhythms of the world.”

Two points to ponder:

1.) Although Orthodox Christians would rightly approach the question of contraception from a somewhat different angle than Rome, we have, in our almost pathological aversion to all things that smack of Roman Catholicism, largely participated in the separation of sexuality from procreation. Only now, as the fruits of our participation in this error manifest themselves, are some beginning to recognize just how grave and far-reaching an error it is.

2.) In light of #1, The second statement (while essentially true) should be rephrased to read… “To sunder sexuality from procreation is to estrange oneself from the primordial rhythms of the world.” In other words, it is is not homosexuals alone who share in this estrangement. (For those who cannot bring themselves to understand this, please don’t remind us about infertile or elderly couples. There is a fecundity to the unity of man and wife that extends beyond childbearing.)

Until and unless we are willing to accept that we have, indeed, all participated in this sin against our humanity, our words – however true they may be – to those who are the grip of homosexuality or struggle with SSA will ring hollow.

“The Naïveté of the Smart
The 20th century thought itself very smart because it discovered, with Marx, Freud and Nietzsche, that the highest human qualities could cover prejudices of class, repressed desires and the search for compensations for resentment.

In light of these revelations, the image of the great men the previous centuries had exalted shattered into a dust cloud of small miseries, to such a degree that it has become necessary to explain their feats and notable works as imaginary projections of their cultural environment.

By the end of the century, it has become a fad in academic circles to produce pejorative biographies, committed to bringing up the sins, flaws and blind spots in the souls of the best individuals, so as to suggest to the masses of readers that in those characters nothing special existed that had not been put there by fame’s serendipity, by a well-orchestrated marketing campaign or by a convergence of arrangements convenient to the interests of the dominant class.

Having taken then to extreme consequences the modern impulse to delight in masochistic self-corrosion, the 20th century seemed not to have a greater motive for pride than its stubborn suspiciousness which made it, after so many centuries of dreams and delusions, the first not to allow self-deceit.

This bizarre cold-eyed arrogance, which rejoices in the contemplation of its own misery because doing so invests its bearer with the sovereign power of undoing with a laconic statement the highest values and hopes, is the perfect inversion of Christian humility, which only searches out its own sins with such rigidity so as to through them exalt the glory of Divine healing.
(…)
This kind of academic literature aims at awakening in the reader that which John Le Carré called “typical corrosive perception of the weak”. To have disseminated such a thing among the educated classes made the 20th century feel particularly smart.

But what will seem supremely naïve to future historians is that such vast numbers among the educated classes of a certain age believed in the possibility of apprehending the personality and the genius of a Goethe, of a Shakespeare – and that is not to mention saints and prophets – through the examination of the flaws and sins they had in common with the rest of humankind, without taking into account what they had that was different. If their weaknesses are precisely the same as everybody else’s, it still needs to be explained why not everybody manages to write “Faust” or “Hamlet” – and much less operate miraculous healings or make prophecies confirmed by time.

To relieve the stress of this uncomfortable question, academic engineering conceived theories such as desconstrutivism and the aesthetic of reception, which, deviating the attention of the readers from the structural unity in which the superior meaning of the great works is apprehended, dispersed their intelligence in the contemplation of the infinity of separated elements that compose them or the inexhaustible variety of reactions that the public of various times and places had to these works.
(…)
That thousands of envious people around the world should give in so easily to the temptation of this cheap relief and piously believe in childish intellectual tricks conceived to obtain it, is what will make of the 20th century, in the vision of times to come, the most naïve century of History.”
http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/english/articles/000923globo_en.htm