Pdn. Patrick Mitchell: Gay Christians? The Grave Danger Coming Out Poses to Christian Churches

Gay ChristianDeacon Patrick Mitchell writes in the most recent issue of Touchstone Magazine that the “coming out” as “gay and Christian” creates an intractable problem for churches.

“Gay and Christian” advocates argue are no longer mutually exclusive terms. This is a complex issue but it boils down to this: Is same-sex attraction a breakage of sorts within the human person, or is it a a fixed state of being? Is same-sex attraction hardwired in a person’s being by either God or biology as something not transitory and can never change?

Furthermore, if same-sex attraction is indeed a fixed state of being and hardwired into a person’s biological or genetic makeup, then is self-identifying as “gay” legitimate and even necessary for the person experiencing same-sex attraction? Yes, the advocates contend. Self-identification as homosexual is vital for psycho/spiritual health and well-being. The term “Gay Christian” in other words contains no contradiction.

This debate has been brewing for several years but only recently came into view with a book published by Eve Tushnet Gay and Catholic: Accepting My Sexuality, Finding Community, Living My Faith and in a recent essay in the American Conservative. Tushnet writes:

As the gay movement has enjoyed remarkable success, a new kind of coming out is occurring, in which gay or same-sex attracted Christians openly discuss both our sexual orientation and our desire to live according to the historic teaching of the Christian church, which bars sexual activity outside marriage of one man and one woman. As gay Christians—an unavoidably reductive term—come out, our presence is changing the culture of our churches.

Tushnet’s assertion that “Gay Christian” is an “unavoidably reductive” term is of course open to question and one that Mitchell challenges in his essay for the reasons stated above: The self-identification of Gay and Christian has at the core assumptions about the human person not in accord with Christian anthropology. Put more simply, to argue that same-sex attraction is hardwired into a person in the same way that opposite attraction is and that homosexual desire is should be a core component of self-identity and self-understanding, posits the human person as something other than what he really is. This view, if widely adopted, will have grave ramifications for Church and culture.

Mitchell elaborates:

The first problem is the term “gay Christian,” which can mean either kind of gay—the professed Christian who lives gay or the professed gay who lives Christian. This ambiguity complicates the discourse, causing considerable uncertainty about how each self-styled “gay Christian” sees himself or herself and about what his or her public plea for acceptance might entail for other Christians. Since those who call themselves “gay Christians” differ greatly in what they mean and want, traditional Christians are justified in objecting to the term on the grounds that it is likely to cause misunderstanding and lead people to presume that it approves more than it should.

The ambiguity of “gay Christian” also hints at a more serious problem, one that challenges fundamental Christian beliefs about sin and human nature. Despite their different lifestyles, both kinds of self-styled “gay Christians” see gayness as so much a part of who they are that they have no choice but to admit it and embrace it. One embraces it by indulgence, the other by abstinence, but both believe they can be nothing but “gay,” and this belief separates them from those Christians who suffer same-sex attraction yet do not identify as “gay” and strive instead to live heterosexually as much as possible in the hope of escaping the attraction. The “gay Christian” harbors no such hope, as Tushnet’s diminishment of the “ex-gay narrative” shows. He therefore resigns himself to living with his homosexuality, inviting others to accept it as his personal norm. “I’m gay,” he says, “so stop expecting me to marry.”

Therein lies the problem, for the sexual attraction of men for men and of women for women cannot be said by Christians to be in any sense normal or “authentic” without corrupting Christianity’s understanding of human nature. Traditional Christianity has always taken a fundamentally positive view of human nature, believing that God did not make man to sin; that sin is therefore not natural to him but something he introduced on his own; and that, although the first sin made sinning easier by alienating man from God, human nature, even in the fallen world, is still not naturally sinful. The proof of this is the Incarnation, in which the Son’s assumption of human nature demonstrates that nothing naturally human is unworthy of God and that when reunited with God, man, too, can live sinlessly and even divinely, like Christ. Healing is therefore always possible through Christ to those who believe.

Again, the topic is complex (any discussion about human sexuality usually is) and any response has to be offered with a healthy dose of self-restraint. But the topic raises questions that require answers deeper than those drawn from the storehouse of popular polemics. Dn. Mitchell offers a thoughtful and measured beginning.

What do you think?

You can read Deacon Mitchell’s complete essay on the Touchstone website.


  1. Christopher says

    I have been thinking about and making the ontological/anthropological argument for years now. For a host of reasons (not least of which is education – they have been educated in that “cause and effect” modern way – they can’t think) most people today in the culture AND in Orthodox parishes simply do not have the ability to go there. Thus, they really hold to the culture’s religion – they have unexamined presuppositions as to what a human being is (anthropology) and what God, the universe, and being is (ontology). Thus the good deacon can say this:

    “Sin is therefore not ontological—not what we are, but a way we are.”

    and it is (along with the level at which his entire reasoning/understanding takes place) quite literally incomprehensible – the understanding, the grammar is not there. “What does that have to do with “identity” and “gayness as identity” anyways? I was BORN this way! It’s SCIENCE? Are you from the middle ages?” The answer to the last question is actually instructive – Classical Christians are not “modern”, and thus the chasm of thought, language, understanding, etc.

    So, unless one is willing or forced (through Providence) to have a conversion, then I despair that right theology such as this will have any real impact. Things have already moved so very fast, and the young are being swallowed up by modernism. I think many many will fall away in the next 20 years…

  2. M. Stankovich says

    My response to Touchstone:

    As I have argued with Deacon Mitchell on many occasions, in any discussion of matters related to “human nature,” it is essential to make the distinction between our humanity – to the use the expression of the Holy Fathers – “as it was in the beginning” (cf. Gen. 1:27 And God made man [κατ’ εἰκόνα θεοῦ ἐποίησεν αὐτόν] according to the image of God), or our humanity as it exists as a direct consequence of our defiance and fall, and in the context of this broken and fallen creation. Deacon Mitchell’s argument relies upon purposely ignoring this fundamental distinction.

    There is nothing in the Scripture, Patristic Tradition, Canonical Tradition, nor our Holy Tradition that indicates that same-sex attraction, in and of itself is sinful; it is any sexual expression outside the holiness of the Christian Marriage of one man and one woman that is sinful. This is not to suggest that homosexuality is “normal,” but rather to simply admit that it is a reality in our fallen world. It is entirely possible for someone with same-sex attraction to live their life in repentance, purity, chastity, single-mindedness (σωφροσύνη), and obedience, to which we are all called, in the fullness of the Church of Christ the Physician, without posing any “grave danger” whatsoever. Condemn the sin of same-sex sexual expression all you wish, but reject the open “condemnation” of homosexuals as an invitation to hate. They may be at the Holy Liturgy with you.

  3. Christopher says

    “There is nothing in the Scripture, Patristic Tradition, Canonical Tradition, nor our Holy Tradition that indicates that same-sex attraction, in and of itself is sinful”

    Strange thing to say, for if this is true as you say:

    “It is entirely possible for someone with same-sex attraction to live their life in repentance, purity, chastity, single-mindedness (σωφροσύνη), and obedience, to which we are all called, in the fullness of the Church of Christ the Physician”

    Then what exactly are they repenting of? Now, I understand the need to adhere to an ontological as opposed to a legal/forensic/moralistic understanding of sin (i.e. the Orthodox definition), but sis thought of in an ontological, disordered, “disease” mode is still sin. This same sex “attraction” (i.e. lust) is still a sin. This is OK in that all of us are sinners, all stare into the abyss, and all need healing. Same sex attraction needs healing (even if it is not healed completely until the eschaton) and thus it is still sin…

  4. M. Stankovich says

    Yours is an odd remark in the middle of Great Lent! “They” are repenting of what we all repent: “By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yes, we wept, when we remembered Zion.” (Ps. 136) I was not referring to same-sex attraction, per se, but to our lives. “Happy shall he be, that takes and dashes your little ones [your sins] against the stones.” (v.7)

  5. Christopher says

    “I was not referring to same-sex attraction, per se, but to our lives”

    Ah, I think I am following you. So, coming back to “There is nothing in the Scripture, Patristic Tradition, Canonical Tradition, nor our Holy Tradition that indicates that same-sex attraction, in and of itself is sinful” – this simply is not true, as there is everything in ” Scripture, Patristic Tradition, Canonical Tradition, Holy Tradition” to indicate that “same-sex attraction” is sinful. It is a disorder of a right attraction, and thus needs healing.

    This is ok, as again sin is not to be thought of in legalistic and merely moralistic terms (at least not correctly). Thus, Christ could say to the paralytic “Son, be of good cheer; your sins are forgiven you.” (Matthew 9:2). Now, what about being a paralytic, “in and of itself is sinful”? In the same way that a person who is afflicted with “same sex attraction” suffers sin, in the same way we all do.

    This effort to bracket off same sex attraction as somehow neutral or good is itself a consequence of an forensic understanding of sin and a work of our modernity…

  6. M. Stankovich says

    It would seem quite obvious that you will find no argument from me. If you would go back to the beginning of the discussion of same-sex attraction on this site in 2011 when I entered it – and heaven knows why you would be so inclined – I attempted to make a simple point: there is clear and unequivocal distinction between those who have same-sex attraction and those who engage in same-sex (same-gender) sexual practices. In the case of the former, there is nothing that prohibits an experience of the fullness of the life of the Church for anyone committed to the path of chastity, purity, singlemindedness, and obedience, which may or may not include sexual expression sanctified in Christian Marriage between one man and one woman. This is a frank impossibility in the case of the latter.

    Nevertheless, to this day there persists a prejudice – and I believe a genuine hatred – of “homosexuals,” without any distinction, within the Orthodox Church. And in my mind, the article at the heart of this discussion is a prime example of the mere thread that separates “precaution” from “persecution.” There is not a single mention of the fact that there exist within the Church those living with same-sex attraction who successfully conquer this passion – this life-long podvig – daily by prayer, fasting, and obedience. Not a word. And they accomplish this in isolation and the terror of being “outed” and revealed. And I can hardly blame them. They are not the “enemy,” an impending “danger” to the sanctity of the Church nor our Tradition, but are our brothers and sisters. It is time we receive them as such.

  7. Christopher says

    Nevertheless, to this day there persists a prejudice – and I believe a genuine hatred – of “homosexuals,” without any distinction, within the Orthodox Church… They are not the “enemy,” an impending “danger” to the sanctity of the Church nor our Tradition, but are our brothers and sisters. It is time we receive them as such.

    It is interesting that you put it in such a way. My experience of American Orthodoxy at least is quite different (8 different parishes from the Atlantic to the South West since becoming Orthodox about 20 years ago now). I have personally known one person who was living this podvig, and he was in no way living in “isolation and terror”. Quite the contrary, he had overt and explicit help. Others I have suspected and again I saw nothing that would indicate they were in any way even isolated or ignored, let alone “persecuted”.

    On the other hand, I have met many many people (especially the young -say those under 30 or 35) who are quite passionate about their own (well, really it’s the cultures) moralistic condemnation of the Church’s traditional anthropology and understanding of repentance and sin. I have seen many an inquirer come in and when they get a taste of this understanding, walk away in self righteous indignation.

    I know it’s possible that a person will run into those with this demonic judgementalism. I have personally heard some awful things said by Orthodox parishioners about “those homeless who keep walking into our coffee hour”, etc. Still, they have always been in the minority and the reaction from those around them is surprise, anger, pity, and rebuke.

    Still, I don’t think it’s an unholy wave of ignorant and demonic judgementalism that is the spirit in American Orthodoxy – unless you are referring to that spirit that want’s to accommodate the “New Man” and change the normative moral Tradition. I can’t speak about Russia, Greece, etc., though I have heard that they have more of a problem along the lines you describe…

    • Fr. Johannes Jacobse says

      Agreed Christopher. Stankovich’s characterization is not remotely true in my experience either. Whenever the “hate” word gets thrown about there is usually a moralist lurking around the corner.

      Fr. Robert Arida’s criticisms in his recent piece advocating for Episcopalian-like acceptance of homosexual behavior in the Orthodox Church (a retooling of the Orthodox moral tradition in accord with the new deterministic anthropology) reveals the earnestness of this inverted Puritan impulse.

  8. M. Stankovich says

    Well, there you have it. I will now go back and respond to the individuals & family members who emailed my on my former websites in response to my essays on the science of same-sex attraction; my extended comments on this site over a period of nearly four years (and I would note 3 Orthodox bishops regarding my comments referring to the “protest” in San Francisco, for which I am apparently on permanent “moderation” on this site); my comments on a similar, less “discriminating” site over the same period of nearly four years; and following my published comments to the Washington Post, the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Mental Health, the CDC, NARTH, JAMA, NEJM, and pretty much every national LGBT organization, and inform them that their perceived sense of hatred, prejudice, and fear was “not remotely true” in the experience of Fr. Hans & the otherwise anonymous “Christopher” and his experience of eight Orthodox parishes and knowing one same-sex attracted individual. How did they reach their conclusions? Because they are “closeted” and isolated, they listened to discussions, comments, and “hate speech” of fellow parishioners. It happens to my gay patients all the time and in multiple venues (e.g. work, church, school, etc.). I cannot imagine any surprise in that. If there is a legitimate “moral” point to be made regarding ethnic, racial, or other “slurs,” Fr. Hans, your use of the term “moralist” as a pejorative is a cheapshot.

    Is it remotely possible, gentlemen, that the fact that it is not your experience somehow related to you and not to the voracity of my statement?

    • Christopher says

      Oh, I have no doubt it happens. I simply don’t believe it is what these “victims” claim it to be, at least not in the main. To put it another way, I think they often label the non-acceptance of their sin as “hate”. Indeed, the whole coming persecution of the Church (and Jews, and Muslims – anyone who does not agree with the New Anthropology) is predicated on the idea, the strong and passionately held belief that unless a person (such as a the parishioner standing next to them) or the “institution” (to artificially reduce the Church for a minute) or “doctrine” does not recognize their version, their story of their “sexual identity”, then by default they are “hated”. This of course is a false characterization of Love and His Church.

      I know this because I have had people tell me this. It is a quite modern way of thinking, and has more to do with dialectical materialism than anything of the Church. Recently, I read an article by a Matushka on a popular Orthodox web site that said basically, if you are white you are a racist and you can’t help it. She appeared completely unaware of her marxist presuppositions. The “gay” community (including almost all the individuals I have met and actually discussed this issue with) stands on the same shaky ground. It is in fact they who are intolerant of those who disagree with their anthropology – and in the near future (even now in my state) it will be they and their political allies who will be persecuting us.

      Is there that crude prejudice and primal, sinful “hate” of the other in our parishes? No doubt. Is it a systemic problem, one that is not dealt with by fellow parishioners and clergy/bishops? I doubt that – I have simply seen with my own eyes very little of it and when I have seen it is the few participating in it are rebuked and frankly shunned if they don’t reform. I just don’t see this as rising to a level that it is a “special” problem to be singled out and dealt with by papers, talks, committee meetings, Episcopal oversight, etc.

      On the other hand, is there an undue influence of the New Anthropology that is stinking the thinking of the “average” parishioner, to the point where about half of the parishioners standing next to you in fact don’t hold to an Orthodox understanding of man, sin, sex, marriage, abortion, etc. (in fact, if they are under 30, almost certainly don’t hold to an Orthodox view). This is the real problem, one worth discussing and one worth singling out with papers, talks, committee meetings, Episcopal oversight, etc.

  9. M. Stankovich says

    You are, indeed, convincing me that it is you, Christopher. You cannot seem to grasp what it might be like to be same-sex attracted, living a life of chastity and obedience, and hearing the typical male “jokes” about masculinity/homosexuality as you sit at coffee after liturgy; or listen to parents discuss the unfounded correlation between same-sex attraction & paedophilia when you are a godfather, or even a trusted babysitter; or listen and correct adolescents you teach in church school or lead in youth activities who joke and use homosexual “slurs.” Or imagine yourself a member of St. Nicholas ROC in the Castro – the “Gayest community in the US” – who literally packed up the entire parish and ran to the ROCOR cathedral when fifteen “protesters” planned to show up after the liturgy. You cannot seem to imagine the fear these individuals have that once “outed,” how significantly their relationships within the parish would change, and I believe their fear is perfectly legitimate. You honestly imagine parents would not object to a gay church school teacher of young children? You honestly imagine, Fr. Hans, there would not be “scandal” if you allowed someone who was openly same-sex attracted – though living a life of chastity and obedience – to be a baptismal sponsor? To be the president of your parish council or your choir director? There is bias, there is prejudice, there is fear, and there is most certainly hatred of homosexuals in the Orthodox Church, from the laity to the clergy, and if it is not your experience, it is because you are not looking and listening.

    • Christopher says

      Interesting. I can’t say I have ever heard “typical male jokes about masculinity/homosexuality” in coffee hour, ever. I have heard some positively awful things from adolescents – but they seem to be equal opportunity taunters, as just about every “victim” category and some I did not know existed seem to be their target. Perhaps that is more of an adolescent thing. If you are going to work with them, perhaps one needs to be a bit more confident.

      I myself would object to a “gay” church school teacher because “gay” is a political category and identity that affirms the inherent goodness of ones same sex lusts. I tell you what though, I will take your perspective seriously and try to see if I have simply been overlooking these things however. I did ask my wife about it – she confirmed my experience however as she has never seen any real “homophobic” type behavior either. Unlike me, she is socially sensitive and emotionally “intelligent” so I rate her judgement higher than mine 🙂

      Coming back to children, I coach my daughters kindergarten soccer team which is comprised solely of her classmates from the local Roman Catholic school she attends. I admit, I couple of times I have been surprised at the rather ‘mature’ things a couple of the boys have said. One needs to be gentle yet firm in nipping this stuff off at the bud IMO.

      Question you might be able to answer: Has the definition or use of a diagnosis of “depression” changed in palliative/end of life care recently in such a way that it is now being used to justify declarations of incompetence, even when the depression seems relatively mild and/or treatable? In other words, is there a trend in this area? I ask because my wife is a MD (Physiatrist) and has been on the periphery before, starting today right in the middle of, a rather bold attempt to withdraw care based on a diagnosis of “depression”.

    • Fr. Johannes Jacobse says

      You honestly imagine, Fr. Hans, there would not be “scandal” if you allowed someone who was openly same-sex attracted – though living a life of chastity and obedience – to be a baptismal sponsor? To be the president of your parish council or your choir director? There is bias, there is prejudice, there is fear, and there is most certainly hatred of homosexuals in the Orthodox Church, from the laity to the clergy, and if it is not your experience, it is because you are not looking and listening.

      “Openly same-sex attracted — though living a life of chastity and obedience” is a peculiar way of putting it. If one is living a live of chastity and obedience why be “open” about same-sex attraction? What is it about same-sex attraction that requires a declaration of ‘openness’ above any other passion?

      As for the assertion that prejudice, fear, and “most certainly hatred” from laity to the clergy towards homosexuals is simply not true. The Church has been dealing with the passion of same-sex attraction for over two millennia. However, the idea that disapproval of homosexual activity constitutes ‘hatred’ of the person who engages in same-sex activity is a modern conceit forged in the hot cauldron of gay polemics. It will take a while to pass but pass it will.

      Have there been people open about their disapproval of homosexual activity? Certainly. We could start with the Apostle Paul in Romans 1. However, the conflation of behavior into personhood and self-idenity (the new anthropology) is also a modern conceit, and one that seems operative in your perception given the peculiar construction of the question posed above. Paul never conflated behavior into personhood and thus saw no reason to elevate the same-sex passion over any other. Elsewhere Paul writes:

      Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

      Is Paul guilty of hate speech? In the light of gay polemics, yes he is. The new anthropology that informs the polemics declares that passion is personhood. Your peculiar construction tries to thread the needle between the new and traditional anthropology but fails because it’s a needle that cannot be threaded.

      • Christopher says

        The new anthropology that informs the polemics declares that passion is personhood. Your peculiar construction tries to thread the needle between the new and traditional anthropology but fails because it’s a needle that cannot be threaded.

        I have seen allot of that attempted threading, disturbingly so from bishops and clergy and professional teachers (usually identified as “theologians”). It however is to be expected as all of us who are part of the Church swim in the culture and can not help but be influenced by it’s dominate worldview. I just hope their current efforts/thinking do not solidify into a certain stance that becomes the sort of default answer. When I think of womens ordination, or “war” I think of the dominate voices and answers coming from these thinkers and spokespersons and though they admit a certain inadequacy of their theologoumena, most of the Faithful appear to have sucked it up. On war, for every voice like Fr. Webster there seems to be a dozen voices echoing Bishop Kallistos or Fr. Harakas…

      • M. Stankovich says

        Would you find it peculiar if I identified myself as bearing the loss of the PMS2 protein, yet retaining the MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 mismatch repair proteins that twice have resulted in colorectal tumors with abnormal mismatch repair in immunohistochemistry (technically referred to as Lynch Syndrome)? This the identical defect that took the life of my maternal grandmother and was the direct cause of multiple forms of cancer in my mother, though, like me, she survived.

        “And his disciples asked him, saying, ‘Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?’ Jesus answered, ‘Neither has this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night comes, when no man can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.’ (Jn. 9:2-5)

        My question is this: why not be open about it, whether it be a familial form of colorectal cancer or same-sex attraction? Both are horrific, destructive blight cast upon our fallen humanity in the context of this broken creation and increasingly understood – at least in some aspect – as an epigenetically influenced phenomenon; but more importantly, neither are they attributable to the desire or wish of God for His creation, and neither will they be present in the Kingdom which is to come (thankfully along with your seemingly endless “hot cauldron of gay polemics”) on that day when our God shall be “all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28).

        How does it not strike you that in the former example, we are able to muster compassion and mercy for those afflicted with what they neither desired nor willed, but in the case of the latter – where you insist on making no distinction between those who choose a path of chastity and obedience from those who would attempt to justify their defiance and sinful existence, employing the ridiculous contrivance of “passion as personhood” – you fundamentally associate even the chaste with loathsome behaviour. And this is precisely the point I have been making. And I will not “blend” one thread into another other than to say this is the message of NARTH: they do not want you gay (homosexual, same-sex atrracted, whatever) and among us. Repentant, chaste, celibate, obedient, or otherwise. You must re-orient yourself, whether it is clinically impossible or to your psychiatric detriment to attempt to do so. While it is “cloaked” in the words of compassion” it is hatred of homosexuals. And we are no different, Fr. Hans. It is endemic and your statement, “It will take a while to pass but pass it will,” is simply naive.

        • Fr. Hans Jacobse says

          No one says anyone must reorient themselves. A person must decide that for himself. Your real objection however seems to be the claim that sexual orientation is not immutable. Why else compare it to a protein deficiency, as if same-sex attraction is solely a biological anomaly?

          The testimony of NARTH and others challenges the idea that sexual orientation cannot change. The data support this (1.7% of the population that is homosexual at any one time yet 37% of that number leave the lifestyle). Reading this assertion as “hatred” of the homosexual merely reintroduces polemics in places where none are needed.

          Nothing more needs to be said.

          • M. Stankovich says

            Fr. Hans, have you provided the names of legitimate, contemporary researchers in biogenetics or epigenetics who teach that sexual orientation is “biologically determined & immutable” as claimed by NARTH? Have you actually read the training materials provided by NARTH for psychotherapist? Have you actually read (meaning from “cover-to-cover”) a treatment guide written by Joseph Nicolosi? Have you ever actually read a statement from me even vaguely suggesting that same-sex attracted individuals cannot be re-oriented? You have not.

            I have indicated, however, that the available research suggests a specific sub-set of individuals (nearly exclusively male) who identify as same-sex attracted and meet a specific set of criteria (e.g. 1st or 2nd degree homosexual relative – weighted if that member is a parent or male sibling; early identification as same-sex attracted; multiple male siblings, homosexual or not; certain shared physical characteristics; early gender role-confusion; etc) for whom attempts at sexual re-orientation have been not only consistently failed, but seem to have been more likely (by anecdotal report ignored by NARTH) to result in spiritual & psychological harm. I have suggested that these individuals seem better directed toward an individual spiritual father, rather than a re-orientation regimen, but this is purely speculative. Apart from this limited sub-set, I am encouraged & confident that by combining the work of psychotherapy with the spiritual discipline of the Church, many more individuals may be able to change their lives. We need the ability to conduct research.

            I made the analogy I did for the simple reason that the first step for the Church in being a haven for the bestormed is to openly accept that homosexuality – like Lynch Syndromeexists, and that we have a solution, should you wish to undertake the path of salvation to which all Christians are called. For it is our God “Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim, 2:4). This will not and cannot happen by supporting & promoting charlatans and liars. I say you are a stumbling block and you need to recuse yourself if you cannot see the ultimate subversion of supporting deceit. Again, you say, “It will take a while to pass but pass it will.” Not when you continue to promote falsehood and divisiveness.

            • Fr. Hans Jacobse says

              Well, OK. I’ve given you a forum and responded as I have. There is no point in continuing without repeating arguments.

              Comments are closed.

  10. M. Stankovich says

    I do not intend to belabour my original point that you will not see what you will not see. I only wish I could share messages and conversations confidentially shared with me, but I cannot.

    My work has been nearly exclusively in forensics psychiatry (CA/NY State prisons & county & municipal jails), and in community clinics providing psychiatric care to the homeless & under-served persistently mentally ill. Since 2010, I have also joined a group conducting research in behavioural genetics. I am not the person to ask for specific information regarding palliative/end of life care.

    • Christopher says

      M. Stankovich,

      May God bless you in your work, I can only imagine the need. Like I said, I will be on the lookout for any crude judgementalism and I assure you I will not be passive.