We are culpable for our thoughts if we do not immediately recognize them as temptations to sin rejecting them in the process. We are culpable for our thoughts if we instead begin to nurse the temptations as our own and begin to enjoy them.

The ultimate anthopologic fallacy of the activists and apologists for homosexuality is that the temptation and the action are neither temptations nor sin but an ontological reality. Homosexuality is a sin. Temptations to such sin are temptations and always preceed the act. Unless they are recognized as such as early as possible they blossum into sin in our minds with their roots in our hearts even without overt action. Still, we are not sin unless we “…give ourselves over to a reprobate mind…”

We are not binary beings. We are made in the image and likeness of God so our thoughts lead to the concrete. There is a fundamental and essential connection which can only be broken by concerted action on our part to change the thought and its direction. Everything we think, contemplate feel and do affects not only our own soul but everyone else around us. It is really incredibly stupid to pretend to believe otherwise–either that or a willful attempt to lead others astray. Tempters always use carefully selected facts and logic to induce first sinful belief followed by sinful action. They insist that you concentrate on their carefully constructed logical system without listening to or considering the false and deadly premise from which it comes.

To me this is spiritual warfare 101.

The battle is not so much against homosexuality, but rather against the false and misleading idea that we are other than how God created us. That somehow the teachings of the Church can and should be overturned because of the brilliance of modern pseudo-science that has revealed to us the ‘real’ truth.

And still Michael Stankovich refuses to admit that he has been factually wrong in writing that same-sex attraction and same-sex sex are “mutually exclusive.”

Gregg,

I believe I contribute to this appearance of arguing a “condition” rather than “persons – personifying homosexuality – while I actually believe that most Orthodox priests, in actual pastoral practice, are the person of the “Good Shepherd.” Met. Anthony (Khrapovitsky) was equally instructive to confessors and penitents, “we are far removed from the time of Grace,” which I interpret to mean that, while staunchly upholding the Truth, the voice of the confessor and pastor is hardly the voice of the internet. I want to believe this is true.

For myself, I have focused on the point that “re-articulation” is neither “re-invention” nor corruption of the Truth. Likewise, by dismissing questioning and discussion because the Truth is, or should be obvious seems to me terribly shortsighted. Who has not taken some amount of inspiration, or in fact delight, coming across, for example, Met. so-and-so from Sinai’s sermon on the Sunday of the Prodigal Son that, while faithful, provides a simple insight that I have not heard on the previous 50 such Sundays! And who is to say that this “simple insight” may not, later, be considered within our “Tradition.” I am not suggesting we need to “change” our minds, but be aware that what is in our minds is not necessarily obvious to others.

I would suggest listening to a “gentler,” approach, as mentioned below, Fr. Thomas Hopko, for perspective. I have described him elsewhere as “theology on meth,” not pejoratively, but as what is referred to in psychiatry as “talking past the point,” meaning: “be patient, he’ll eventually get there!” Fr. Tom is staunchly Orthodox, but is an example of a loving “Good Shepherd” who is neither frightened nor threatened by “sinners.”

Gregg, blogsites are not the place for pastoral care. If you want pastoral care, see your pastor. Blogsites are public squares where any views may be aired, including many contrary to Christian truth. If we should not on this blogsite counter the erroneous and pernicious views put forth here by gay activists, where should we? Where should we speak the plain truth?

You apparently would have us speak the plain truth only among those who already believe it and therefore won’t be offended by it, but where would that be? Only in the most private settings, where people have been somehow vetted in advance on what offends them. In other words, you would have the plain truth driven underground — hidden under a bushel — where the world, which needs to see it, would never do so.

Most people would see the one-third reporting success and two-thirds reporting improvement as a reason to hope. Why do you persist in dismissing such reports as mere anecdote? Don’t you want people to have hope? Many gay activist don’t; they want people to believe they have no choice in being gay. Dismissing evidence credible enough for Dr. Robert Spitzer, and still refusing to admit that SSA and SSSA are not “mutually exclusive,” makes you sound like nothing more than a gay activist.

This is a fair criticism, Michael, and it is directly relevant to your disparagement of the credibility of Dr. Lynne Pappas and NARTH. Your own credibility is in question.

Rob,

What you are attempting to bring to this discussion is an implication of falsehood based on anecdote; “observations” that, in and of themselves, cannot answer the question of the validity of the claims made by NARTH. Using the standard that observed deviations are considered random until proven otherwise, the fact that one NARTH participant or 1,000 NARTH participants “reverted” (and, obviously, the reverse is true for “successes” as well) tells you nothing helpful, other than for some individuals in some cases report being helped. Anecdote serves as the catalyst for investigation, but as I have noted above, the APA has effectively eliminated the possibility of confirming or refuting reparative therapies as helpful.

I appreciate all that goes on here and the value of these discussions in the public square. I feel though, that there is a difference in debating the subtleties of Orthodox theology and teaching, and debating something like homosexuality that for so many is a very deep and emotional part of who they understand themselves to be. Outside of the Church, or inside of the Church any discussion of homosexuality can’t ignore the real life impact on individuals. Morality and discussing morality is an important thing, but it cannot be devoid of pastoral care and understanding. When the script given to those wrestling with homosexuality from the LGTBQ community is so loudly full of self acceptance and loving yourself, it is difficult to turn and look at the script so frequently loudly proclaimed by the Christian Church when it is so deeply negative and condemnatory. I’m not saying we should hide or not speak the truth of our faith, but speak on celibacy and a life lived for Christ in positive and encouraging terms. Only the most convicted few will be able to wrestle within the Church when all they ever hear is negative. There is joy that comes through the cross of both Christ and the individual. Denying oneself is about embracing something greater, not about pure dismissal. Embracing celibacy and the call of the Church is something not to be shoved down people’s throats but offered as a vocation and calling to purity and holiness. This is all deeply rooted in the theology and teaching of the Church and i believe would get us much farther in staying true to the Church’s teachings and ministering and loving these people. The cross gives life, this incredible paradox and mystery is so fundamental and yet so confounding. Life through death, joy through suffering, freedom through obedience, etc… Lets begin to discuss the positive along with the negative, the affirmation and not just the condemnation.
I’ve found this essay to reflect upon some of what i’m speaking about regarding celibacy.
http://www.osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/8614/After-the-desert-A-faithful-Catholics-reflection.aspx
Forgive me if i’ve erred.

Gregg, sites like this are the ground-zero of the fractious cultural debates. Lot’s of people read the postings here (in the thousands) but most don’t comment. It functions somewhat like a journal, where ideas are first introduced and only later make it into the mainstream. I know this because I see the ideas borrowed and used elsewhere — sometimes verbatim. So when you see a topic highlighted, it is usually because it is on many people’s minds and often because it has not yet been resolved. That accounts for the fractious nature of the debates sometimes.

Only two rules really operate here. One is that you have to maintain at least a modicum of respect (and most people do); and second, moralistic finger wagging holds no authority whatsoever (and the moralisms are often couched in what I call “Orthospeak” — “You’re not loving…” and that type of thing). Finger wagging is just a cheap substitute for substantive discourse and we have little patience with cheap substitutes.

M. Stankovich has got this part right:

By the wisdom of men and the grace of the Holy Spirit, Truth was articulated from what, at face, appeared as chaos.

He is also correct that (framing it positively): Every generation has to appropriate and apply the truth of the tradition in its time and place. That means debate has to take place in the public square. This site is part of that square.

It could be like alcoholism or smoking. Once a drinker or smoker, always a drinker or smoker. The difference is whether or not you drink or smoke. “Orientation” may apply to much more than homosexuality in other words, and the strength of that orientation may be related to behavior.

According to NARTH member Joseph Nicolosi during an interview in 2005:

One third experience “significant improvement — they understand their homosexuality and have some sense of control.” However, they may engage in same-sex sexual behavior.

Another third are “cured;” they refrain from same-sex behavior and the strength and frequency of their same-sex desires is diminished, but not necessarily gone.

The other third fail to change.

So among those most dedicated to not only refraining from same-sex conduct but actually modifying their orientation, it appears none of them really became a full-fledged heterosexual. Again, this is by NARTH’s own admission (despite their spin on the word “cure”).

One also wonders what happens in the years following their treatment. Was this “success” maintained? Many people have later admitted it was not.

The problem is that when reparative therapy inevitably fails, people will tend to be a bit self-deceptive about its actual success (much like those with terminal illnesses who hopefully believe they are “cured” after a Benny Hinn revival). As any real therapist (and even Christian counselor) will tell you, progress depends on honesty and self-awareness. This won’t happen when one’s lying to themselves about the real state of affairs.

Gregg,

Discourse is the manner by which the Church has determined and articulated Truth. A simple examination of events that precipitated the Ecumenical Councils – where formal “opinions” were solicited by emperors and patriarchs attempting resolution – and the descriptions of the Councils’ proceedings are scenes of dramatic contention and rhetorical “battle.” Most importantly, both parties to the conflict were given their “hearing,” from Arius the “Arch-Heretic” to otherwise obscure and otherwise unknown monks brought from the desert. Some we now call saints. By the wisdom of men and the grace of the Holy Spirit, Truth was articulated from what, at face, appeared as chaos. I have been quite “relentless” in insisting that the articulation of Truth was not “completed” by Blessed John of Damascus; that “everything that needs to be said, has been said.” It seems to me that such an opinion denies that the Holy Spirit “moves where He wishes,” and suggests that the Energy of the Father has been somehow “contained.” Likewise, it denies that each and every element of Tradition has been determined and sanctified by time, and not “declaration” or vote. Ultimately, then, we reach the conclusion that Tradition is undermined or compromised by “re-articulation” by the fathers and teachers in each generation, rather than the real possibility of expanding and deepening our knowledge of the mystery of Christ and the Church. And it all begins with “articulation” expressed at Chalcedon, “Following the Divinely inspired teaching of the Holy Fathers and the Tradition of the Catholic Church…”

I suggest that you familiarize yourself with this site. More than most, there is an abundance of knowledge to be gained, and like most, there is an abundance of animosity. Perhaps what is unique here is that the “battle,” and often the distraction, is in the minutiae, and curt dismissal is a form of “your day in court.” And so it goes…

I am an idiot and a con – albeit a good one. Yours was the last word.