I just saw this over at AIO and asked for permission to reprint it here. The comments above the essay are by Fr. Hans Jacobse. I endorse what he wrote especially this:
Closer to home apologists for retooling the Orthodox moral tradition such as Fr. Robert Arida and Fr. Christopher Calin need to reconsider their positions.
Fr. Hans Jacobse writes:
In what could be called a stunning reversal, Dr. Lisa Diamond, a top researcher of the American Psychological Association (APA) and avowed lesbian activist, states that viewing sexuality as exclusively two types — heterosexual and homosexual — that are rigid and unchangeable no longer applies. California psychologist Laura A. Haynes writes in the essay below that “the battle to disprove ‘born that way and can’t change’ is now over, and [Diamond] is telling LGBT activists to stop promoting the myth.”
Haynes says:
In the APA Handbook, Dr. Diamond states, “Hence, directly contrary to the conventional wisdom that individuals with exclusive same-sex attractions represent the prototypical ‘type’ of sexual-minority individual, and that those with bisexual patterns of attraction are infrequent exceptions, the opposite is true. Individuals with nonexclusive patterns of attraction are indisputably the ‘norm,’ and those with exclusive same-sex attractions are the exception” (v. 1, p. 633). Most people who experience same-sex attraction also already experience opposite-sex attraction.
What this means in plain English is what many of us have known all along: Sexuality desire is fluid, homosexual desire is not “hard-wired;” that “born that way and can’t change” is a myth; feelings don’t overrule volition (behavior is a choice, one does not need to act on every feeling — especially sexual feelings); the “born that way” argument is political, not scientific; sexual orientation is subject to change among others.
No doubt Diamond’s conclusions causes alarm in the ranks of Gay INC. Haynes writes:
Dr. Diamond tells LGBT activists near the end of her YouTube lecture, “I feel as a community, the queers have to stop saying, ‘Please help us. We’re born this way, and we can’t change’ as an argument for legal standing. I don’t think we need that argument, and that argument is going to bite us in the ass, because now we know that there’s enough data out there, that the other side is aware of as much as we are aware of it.” In other words, Dr. Diamond says, “Stop saying ‘born that way and can’t change’ for political purposes, because the other side knows it’s not true as much as we do.”
Closer to home apologists for retooling the Orthodox moral tradition such as Fr. Robert Arida and Fr. Christopher Calin need to reconsider their positions.
Diamond reveals what the Orthodox moral tradition has always known: sexuality can be a struggle but the idea that what a person feels defines who he is — who God created him to be — is false. If a person feels homosexual desire it does not mean he is created homosexual. If a person decides to engage in homosexual behavior, that decision is freely chosen even if the desire is not. If a person person experiences homosexual desire and wishes to change into normative heterosexuality, abundant evidence exists that such a change is may indeed be possible.
Haynes’ essay follows.
American Psychological Association Makes New Statement About Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, Is Silent About Important Research
By Laura A. Haynes, Ph.D., California Psychologist. 9/14/2016. Contact: www.laurahaynesphd.com.
In its “Series Preface,” the APA Handbook on Sexuality and Psychology (American Psychological Association, 2014) states,
With the imprimatur of the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States and the largest association of psychologists in the world, and with content edited and authored by some of its most respected members, the APA Handbook in Psychology series will be the indispensable and authoritative reference resource to turn to for researchers, instructors, practitioners, and field leaders alike. (p. xvi).
The American Psychological Association (APA) could not confer any higher authority on the APA Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology than it does, bestowing its “imprimatur” and calling it “authoritative.” Dr. Lisa Diamond, a self-avowed lesbian, is co-editor-in-chief of the Handbook, and she authors and co-authors chapters in it. She qualifies as one of the APA’s “most respected members.” In her APA Handbook chapters, her book, and a YouTube lecture, she says sexual orientation does not come in two types—exclusively homosexual and exclusively heterosexual—that are rigid and unchangeable. The battle to disprove “born that way and can’t change” is now over, and she is telling LGBT activists to stop promoting the myth. The public needs to hear this.
In the APA Handbook, Dr. Diamond states, “Hence, directly contrary to the conventional wisdom that individuals with exclusive same-sex attractions represent the prototypical ‘type’ of sexual-minority individual, and that those with bisexual patterns of attraction are infrequent exceptions, the opposite is true. Individuals with nonexclusive patterns of attraction are indisputably the ‘norm,’ and those with exclusive same-sex attractions are the exception” (v. 1, p. 633). Most people who experience same-sex attraction also already experience opposite-sex attraction.
More conventional wisdom that the APA Handbook says is not true is that same-sex attraction and transgender identity never change. The American Psychological Association (2011) officially recognizes sexual fluidity or sexual orientation change. The APA Handbook says, “Although change in adolescence and emerging adulthood is understandable, change in adulthood contradicts the prevailing view of consistency in sexual orientation” (Rosario & Schrimshaw, 2014, APA Handbook, v. 1, p. 562). Also, both the American Psychiatric Association (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-Fifth Edition, p. 455) and the American Psychological Association (Bockting, 2014, APA Handbook, v. 1, p. 744) recognize transgender identity fluctuates, and the vast majority of gender dysphoric minors will eventually accept their chromosomal sex. Therapy that is open to change in minors or adults is more in harmony with the developmental course of sexual orientation and gender identity for many than is gay-affirmative or transgender-affirmative therapy.
Researchers measure sexual orientation by one or more of three separate factors: sexual attraction, behavior, and self-label identity. These do not necessarily match within the same individual. For example, a person could have bisexual attraction, same-sex behavior, and heterosexual identity if there is a sense that the same-sex sexuality does not represent the authentic self. The APA Handbook states that “[R]esearch on sexual minorities has long documented that many recall having undergone notable shifts in their patterns of sexual attractions, behaviors, or [orientation] identities over time” (v. 1, p. 636).
The APA Handbook reviews a highly regarded study by gay researcher Savin-Williams and colleagues (Savin-Williams, Joyner, & Rieger, 2012; Rosario & Schrimshaw, 2014, APA Handbook, v. 1, p. 562) that followed the sexual identity of young adult participants when most were ages 18 through 24 and again at ages 24 through 34, about 6 years later. Participants indicated whether their sexual identity was heterosexual, mostly heterosexual, bisexual, mostly homosexual, or homosexual. The bisexual group was larger than exclusively gay and lesbian groups combined. But the largest identity group, second only to heterosexual, was “mostly heterosexual” for each sex and across both age groups, and that group was “larger than all the other non-heterosexual identities combined” (Savin-Williams et al., abstract). “The bisexual category was the most unstable” with three quarters changing that status in 6 years (abstract, emphasis added). “[O]ver time, more bisexual and mostly heterosexual identified young adults of both sexes moved toward heterosexuality than toward homosexuality” (p 106, emphasis added).
Kleinplatz and Diamond (2014, APA Handbook, v.1, p. 256) say, “Historically such individuals [mostly heterosexual] have been treated with skepticism and suspicion by laypeople and scientists alike. They have been viewed as either closeted lesbian, gay, or bisexual individuals (who cling to a mostly heterosexual label to avoid the stigma associated with same-sex sexuality) or as confused or questioning “heteroflexibles,” Heteroflexibles refers to individuals who, given our culture, have had infrequent same- sex fantasies or experimented with same-sex behavior but are not really gay or bisexual (v.1, p. 256). Kleinplatz and Diamond urge that “it is critically important for clinicians…to allow individuals to determine for themselves the role of same-sex sexuality in their lives and identity” (p. 257) (emphasis added).
Some mostly heterosexual individuals want therapy to help them be faithful in their marriages and keep their families intact. Some have had therapists wrongly assume they are really homosexual and would be happier leaving their marriage and family for a gay life. They do not identify as LGB, and LGB activists who oppose therapy have neither recognized nor represented this majority of same-sex attracted individuals.
Readers can hear Dr. Diamond review research in her YouTube lecture to an LGBT audience at Cornell University (2013). She said excellent and abundant research has now established that sexual orientation—including attraction, behavior, and identity self label—all three—is fluid for both adolescents and adults and for both genders, and exceptions for LGB individuals are a minority.
Despite the research, political activists continue to promote the “born-that-way-and-can’t-change” myth about sexual orientation. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) published a paper in May this year in which it said the “National Gay and Lesbian Task Force reacted with alarm,” and “warned that the ex-gay industry was under-mining the battle for LGBT rights by suggesting that homosexuality is a choice, not an unchangeable condition like skin color” (p. 9). Actually, it is the APA and Dr. Diamond, herself a gay activist, that are undermining the falsehood that sexual orientation is like race. The APA (2008) says same-sex attraction is generally not a choice. Therapists who are open to change agree people generally do not just choose their sexual attractions, otherwise these therapists would not bother to offer therapy. But the reality is, sexual orientation is changing all around us.
Dr. Diamond tells LGBT activists near the end of her YouTube lecture, “I feel as a community, the queers have to stop saying, ‘Please help us. We’re born this way, and we can’t change’ as an argument for legal standing. I don’t think we need that argument, and that argument is going to bite us in the ass, because now we know that there’s enough data out there, that the other side is aware of as much as we are aware of it.” In other words, Dr. Diamond says, “Stop saying ‘born that way and can’t change’ for political purposes, because the other side knows it’s not true as much as we do.”
She also directly discussed the harm of political activists promoting the “can’t change” myth in her own book on sexual fluidity in women (2008, pp. 256-257) that won the Distinguished Book Award from the APA Division 44 (LGBT). She acknowledged that, for political motives, some activists “keep propagating a deterministic model: sexual minorities are born that way and can never be otherwise.” She addresses the question, “[I]s it really so bad that it is inaccurate?” Her answer is, “Over the long term, yes, particularly because women are systematically disenfranchised by this approach.” She said this deceptive practice does harm to women who have experienced sexual attraction fluidity and have “thought there was something wrong with them.” She said this “silencing is ironic,” because it is being inflicted by the modern lesbian/gay/bisexual rights movement.
Dr. Diamond has publicly gone on record that she opposes psychotherapy that is open to sexual attraction change. Nevertheless, she says in her book (2008, p. 252) that some same-sex attracted individuals may have more capacity than others to channel the direction of their sexual fluidity in response to their context, and they may for that reason modify it in psychotherapy.
Officially, the APA Handbook predictably affirms the position of an APA Task Force (2009) that “same-sex attractions, behavior, and partnerships” are “normal variations in human sexuality and explicitly condemns the use of therapeutic techniques aimed at changing an individual’s sexual orientation” (Mustanski, Kuper, and Greene, 2014, APA Handbook, p. 598).
What is surprising is that the APA, in its 2014 Handbook, is now not consistent in the view that sexual orientation is normal. The APA Handbook confirms there is excellent research evidence for “associative or potentially causal links” between childhood sexual abuse and ever having same-sex partners, especially for some men. (Mustanski, Kuper, & Greene, 2014, pp. 609-610). It also confirms that there is possible evidence that psychopathology may be related to the development of transgender identity (Bockting, 2014, APA Handbook, v.1, p). If pathology leads to an individual’s sexual variation, treatment could lead to a significant and meaningful shift in that variation. It is harmful and ineffective to ban such treatment.
Curiously, the APA has been silent on even stronger research finding that growing up without one or both biological parents, especially the parent who is the same sex as the child, is potentially causally related to having same-sex attraction, relationships, or identity (Frisch & Hviid, 2006; Francis, 2008; Udry & Chantala, 2005). If literal unavailability of parents could have such effects for some individuals, do we want to dismiss lightly the possibility that emotional unavailability of parents, and especially the parent of the same sex as the child, could have similar effects for some?
In the most stunning of these studies, research on a population cohort of two million Danes (Frisch & Hviid 2006) found that, not only loss of a parent, but specifically loss of the same-sex parent in childhood (such as through death, divorce, end of parent cohabitation, not living with the same-sex parent, or unknown paternity), and especially parent loss during the first six years of life and, for girls, the mother’s death during adolescence, were associated with greater likelihood of entering same-sex marriage. The most important developmental ages for gender identity and sexual orientation are considered to be primarily the first six years of life and secondarily adolescence. The researchers concluded, “Our study provides population-based, prospective evidence that childhood family experiences are important determinants of heterosexual and homosexual marriage decisions in adulthood” (p. 533).
In the United States, a large, nationally representative, prospective longitudinal study using most of the well respected Ad Health data set (Francis 2008) found that being raised with only one or neither parent was significantly correlated with same-sex sexuality. A female growing up with only a biological father, in other words growing up without her biological mother, increased the likelihood a female identified herself as not exclusively heterosexual by 9.5 percentage points (p. 376).
Another large, nationally representative, prospective, longitudinal Ad Health study ((Udry & Chantala, 2005), unlike the previous study (Francis (2008), measured both level of same-sex attraction and level of opposite-sex attraction separately. The researchers found 90% of boys who had strong same-sex interest had absent fathers—a very strong relationship. Among boys, the greater the degree of same-sex attraction, the greater the likelihood of father absence, delinquency, and suicidal thoughts. As opposite sex interest also rose, that strong relationship completely disappeared (p. 487). In other words, with father’s presence, there likely was opposite-sex attraction, possibly with same-sex attraction also.
There is little research on gender identity. The APA Handbook says, “Gender nonconformity is related to homosexuality” (Rosario & Schrimshaw, 2014, p 572). What relates to one may possibly relate to the other. Both change, may be caused by psychopathology, and, therefore, may change through therapy. Individuals who have sexual variations should have the right to know the above information and to seek therapy to address such issues.
REFERENCES
American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association, pp. 451-459. See especially pp. 455-456.
American Psychological Association (2008). Answers to your questions: For a better understanding of sexual orientation and homosexuality. Washington, CD: American Psychological Association
American Psychological Association (2011). Definition of Terms: Sex, Gender, Gender Identity, Sexual Orientation. In The Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Clients, adapted by the APA Council of Representatives, February 18-20, 2011. http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/guideli
American Psychological Association Task Force. (2009). Report of the Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Bockting, W.(2014). Chapter 24: Transgender Identity Development. In Tolman, D., & Diamond, L., Co-Editors-in-Chief (2014) APA Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology (2 volumes). Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Diamond, L. (2008). Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women’s Love and Desire. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Press.
Diamond, L. (Published Dec. 6, 2013). Lisa Diamond on sexual fluidity of men and women, Cornell University. From Diamond, L. (Oct. 17, 2013). Just how different are female and male sexual orientation? Human Development Outreach and Extension Program. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2rTHDOuUBw.
Diamond, L. (2014) Chapter 20: Gender and same-sex sexuality. In Tolman, D., & Diamond, L., Co-Editors-in-Chief (2014) APA Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology, Volume 1. Person Based Approaches. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association. Vol. 1, pp. 629-652.
Francis, A. M. (2008). Family and sexual orientation: The family-demographic correlates of homosexuality in men and women. Journal of Sex Research, 45 (4), 371-377. DOI:10.1080/00224490802398357
Frisch, M. and Hviid, A. (2006). Childhood family correlates of heterosexual and homosexual marriages: A national cohort study of two million Danes. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35:533-547.
Kleinplatz, P. & Diamond, L. (2014) Chapter 9: Sexual diversity. In Tolman, D., & Diamond, L., Co-Editors-in-Chief (2014) APA Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology, Volume 1. Person Based Approaches. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association. Vol. 1, pp. 245-267.
Mustaky, B., Kuper, L., and Geene, G. (2014) Chapter 19: Development of sexual orientation and identity. In Tolman, D., & Diamond, L., Co-Editors-in-Chief (2014) APA Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology, Volume 1. Person Based Approaches. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Rosario, M. & Schrimshaw, E. (2014). Theories and etiologies of sexual orientation. In Tolman, D. & Diamond, L., Co-Editors-in- Chief (2014). APA Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology, Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association. V. 1, pp. 555-596.
Savin-Williams, R., Joyner, K., & Rieger, R. (2012). Prevalence and stability of self-reported sexual orientation identity during young adulthood. Archives of Sexual Behavior 41: 103-110.
Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) (May 2016). Quacks: ‘Conversion Therapists,’ the Anti-LGBT Right, and the Demonization of Homosexuality. https://www.splcenter.org/20160525/quacks-conversion-therapists-anti-lgbt-right-and-demonization-homosexuality
Tolman, D., & Diamond, L., Co-Editors-in-Chief (2014) APA Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology (2 volumes). Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Udry, J.R., & Chantala, K. (2005). Risk factors differ according to same- sex and opposite-sex interest. Journal of Biosocial Science, 37, 481–497. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0021932004006765
I have previously stated on this Blog that this was going to hapen. That once GAY, INC., won the legal and political war this “pretense” of being born this way and can’t change was going to disappear. In fact, many Gay activists were even very open about this and knew years ago what the REAL science was saying about their lifestyles, but for the good of the LGBT cause the “Myth” of born this way needed to be supported and validated at every turn. However, why?
The reason is two-fold:
First, is the personal issue. If one is “Born this way” then he is immediately given sympathy, toleration and acceptance. The general good nature of people kicks in and we love people who can’ help themselves no matter what. This is actually a very admiral quality, but one that was taken advantage of and exploited for political reasons. It also helps to expiate parents and institutions for their passive or direct action in messing people up in their sexual identity. The direct link between sexual abuse and homosexuality has been there for years, but down played if not out right rejected, like the link between Pedophilia and Homosexuality. If this “Myth” is now being dropped be on the lookout for these other “Myths” to also be dropped. However, we should be mad and sad at this because of the large human wreckage it has caused over several years and generations, and the number of souls lost. Lord have Mercy on us for failing them!
Second, under our previous form of government, which we currently do not have, rights were NEVER given by the State, but only RECOGNIZED by the State. Hence if one is “Born Gay” and that this is intrinsic to their very being then that person(s) has, must have, certain natural rights and privileges that the government must recognize and make certain activities and institution available to them. makes perfect sense.
However, many in the LGBT Movement saw the problems this “Myth” of Genetic Determinism truly posed and wanted to get away from it, especially now that government CREATES rights instead of recognizing inherent rights, which was under our old constitutional model based on natural law:
NOT BORN THIS WAY.
So now that we are finally seeing the myth as a “Myth” it does nothing more than further validate our Orthodox Christian Morality which can now move forward into re-energizing a truly Orthodox Pastoral response to our LGBT brothers and sisters that has NOTHING to do with accepting and affirming their lifestyle, but accepting and affirming THEM as people, and offering them Jesus Christ and His Gospel that will free them of their passions and make them true members of Christ’s Church.
In addition, for those of us who stood firm and NEVER compromised on Christ’s truth, it is not us who have been vindicated but Christ and his eternal truth of repentance and salvation., and that HIS Gospel truly is Never Changing in these constantly changing times. His guidepost, as always, remains steadfast because Christ is the same, yesterday, today and forever! Glory to Jesus Christ, Glory be to Him forever and to Him alone!
Peter
So……”straight” people have the same temptations! But they are able to overpower them, while “gay” people are those that gave in to those universal drives!
I think that that straight people AND gay people have the same amount of self control, but gay people feel they should be given a pass when it comes to having sex outside of marriage, BECAUSE they are gay.
It’s OK for the rest of us, however, to be labeled adulterers for even HAVING FEELINGS for someone, even if those feelings are unexpressed and we don’t act on them! (Yes, this happened to me.)
The label shouldn’t bother me, because I was an adulteress the day my husband left me for another woman, tainting any man who marries me as an adulterer, because of my ex-husband’s actions. Why am I stuck in this abysmal situation, when gay people can indiscriminately act on their own misguided inclinations and probably be crowned, if they come to their senses, stop being gay, and later want to be married in the Church?
I don’t like confession. The only real relief I get is when it is over. 90% of the time, I feel like I have to say things like I was angry with Jessica and raised my voice, I didn’t put the shopping cart back where it was supposed to be, and I’m having a hard time getting up in the morning, because I’m depressed. Apparently, feeling depressed is an affront to God, because if you trust Him, you’d know everything will be hunky dory. Confessors don’t seem to understand that depression is often chemical and prolonged periods of stress can cause it. It has nothing to do with one’s faith. Christ didn’t promise blessings in THIS world. He must have felt like crap most of the time. He couldn’t have liked being nailed to a cross! He literally cried for Mary, Martha and their family when he was told Lazarus died. He felt their pain. He was not running around happy all the time, if any of the time. Even those closest to Him didn’t truly understand him.
Finally, it is hard for a woman to confess to a man, because men invariably think every thing you feel is about sex. Men are wired to think that way. Women are not. Where did this whole practice of making a woman confess to a man come from? Can anyone enlighten me?
I know this thread is not about confession, but I would really like some feedback on this, because it bothers me THAT much.
Well Gail,
After reading what you’ve written, I can tell you I won’t be feeling sorry for myself for some time! Sheesh! You’re carrying quite a load on your shoulders there. The way you’ve laid it out, it sounds like it’s right on the precipice of snow-balling. We don’t know each other but, if you’d be willing to consider my witness based on my experience, you’ll not try to heal yourself. Really! What a lot to have on one’s plate! There must be trustworthy healers and guides within the Church to whom you can turn. Seek them out, dear friend. Someone will surely be able to refer you. Again, don’t try to live with this and definitely don’t try to heal yourself.
Don’t worry about sinners who seem to be getting away with something. NOBODY “gets away” with anything. But, as Orthodox Christians, we already knew that didn’t we?
I’m still pretty self-centered and don’t usually pray for others, but every now and then I encounter someone like you. You and them I pray for.
Gail, I agree with Gregory here. I too, don’t like Confession but I am glad when it’s over. Although I will say that it must be particularly harder for a woman. On the other hand, a woman’s confession must be particularly hard on the Confessor.
Occupational hazard.
No.
A spiritual father or mother witnessing a penitent’s confession must try to disappear and make it clear that confessions of our sins are offered to Christ Himself, alone.
There is no difference between women and men coming to confession. We are all children of God, and Jesus Christ is our brother by adoption, and shares His inheritance with us who have faith in Him, according to the scriptures.
Any advice we receive from our spiritual fathers/mothers, spiritual and otherwise, occurs apart from the confession of our sins.
But let us admit our sins and repent them!
It’s heartbreaking to read of your pain here, dear Gail. I can only echo the sound advice offered by Gregory Manning and George Michalopulos: Talk with your parish priest or spiritual father/mother apart from confession, and see how they can be of help, with or without a professional consultation. There’s a lot of support available just for the asking!
But as to the other question, about confession, it’s helpful for us to remember that the ‘man’ to whom we confess our sins is none other than Jesus Christ Himself. The priest who stands in for The Church in confession should recite the introductory prayer so that you can hear it, a prayer in which he describes himself as ‘merely a witness’.
As St Paul teaches, ‘not every sin leads to death’, but when we fall into one of those deadly sins and so cause our own exclusion from the eucharistic community of Christ’s own Body and Bride, we must be reinstated to communion with The Church by way of formal absolution, which can be given only by bishops and priests who have that authority. Confession in itself doesn’t need to involve a priest, but absolution does.
Not being a priest myself, when one of my spiritual children confesses that he has done something so serious as to need liturgical absolution and eucharistic reinstatement, I end him to a priest for that. He might or might not repeat his confession, depending on the priest, but I have no objection if he does.
So, you have options. If it’s of any help, the little you’ve written here doesn’t make me think that you’re tainted by adultery or anything else, so stop beating yourself up about that and get some good advice.
You remain in my poor prayers, and I ask for yours.
Gail, I hope the Priests you may confess BEFORE (not TO) are traditional enough and intelligent enough to say the exhortation printed in the service book, which contains these ESSENTIAL words…..”and I am only a WITNESS, bearing testimony before Him of all things you say to me..” preceded by “Christ stands here invisibly to receive your confession…”. Otherwise, you’ll fall into the error of thinking you are confessing to the man who was set aside to be a Presbyter!
Further, the Mystery of Penance was essentially never ever an office of counselling and correction, as many fondly imagine, including Presbyters!
A lot more can be said but I’m too old and even feeble to write out a history of Penance. Just QUIT thinking and saying that you confess TO a Priest, rather than the Orthodox: ” to Christ, in the hearing of a Priest.”
Gail, I’m really sorry that you were labelled as an adulterer for confessing feelings about someone that you didn’t act upon. I would hope that I have never done anything like that in 39 years of priesthood, though I’m afraid I HAVE many mistakes. I may well have driven away 20 souls for every one soul I’ve helped. Only God knows this.
As for Confession, I’ve always understood the Words of Our Lord in Matthew’s Gospel,”Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven; and so whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven” Matthew 8:18. You are confessing to God and a sinful priest, such as myself, would only be the witness.
Hi Gail,
Personally, I think you are way, way too hard on yourself. You sound like an extremely nice person to me. You had feelings that you resisted; that’s very admirable and noble. There’s absolutely no shame in that. If anyone labeled you anything, they’re guilty of spiritual abuse. Also, you are not “tainted” in way, shape or form.
I can understand how you feel about confessing to a man. Perhaps, you should confess before an older man who is not ruled by his passions. We all get depressed at times, and there’s nothing wrong with taking medication for depression. I wish you the best, know that you are a good person, and that God loves you infinitely. His mercy is unlimited.
Not that they’re justified, but can you blame gay people for feeling that way when we give nary a slap on the wrist to straight people who engage in all manner of pre-marital sexual sin?
The Lord said that merely looking upon another with lust is adultery (Matthew 5:28).
Confession feels like a burden when we are prideful, and it is when we feel that way when we are in greatest need of it, because it draws us to repentance.
Psalm 50: “Against thee only have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight.” Well, thoughts are one thing which only God can see, yet they can still betray us to the devil. Why do you think the Lord said lust = adultery? In fact, sinful actions begin with sinful thoughts. It’s fine to confess putting a shopping cart back in the wrong place, but what was your state of mind when you did it? Raising your voice against a child out of anger is wrong, but doing so out of sternness as part of discipline is not wrong. Bad thoughts need to be confessed, and bad actions need to be confessed insofar as they resulted from bad thoughts (including inattentiveness). We must continually guard our thoughts.
Confession is more than acknowledging just our sin to God, but more generally our brokenness. We are fallen, and depression is one of the manifestations of the fall. Why else would we despair in a world basking in the afterglow of the Resurrection? Depression is less a lack of trust, and more a lack of hope, hope in the Resurrection and life eternal. So pray to God to help you find hope in Christ, to guard your thoughts, and to do his will.
“Not that they’re justified, but can you blame gay people for feeling that way when we give nary a slap on the wrist to straight people who engage in all manner of pre-marital sexual sin?”
Mark,
Are you saying that you know “straight people who engage in all manner of pre-marital sexual sin”, and not only do so, but defiantly proclaim it to their priest and the congregation and are allowed to get away with “nary a slap on the wrist”?
Effectively, yes. I’ve watched older congregants take their adult children, cohabiting partners in tow, to church. I see the adult children go up to confession, then later to communion. Next year, rinse and repeat, with the same cohabiting partners visiting again, and at times a different partner. No one bats an eye. Yet the commenters on this blog seem to get huffy if homosexuals do the same exact same thing, even casting aspersions on the sincerity of their repentance. We could just as easily question the sincerity of the repentance of these cohabiting adult children.
I’m far, far from a purveyor of the homosexualist agenda, but if we are to be an effective witness of Church teaching on homosexuality, we must be icons of the Christian way. In other words, we must set the example.
And that’s just premarital sin. We need to have — to borrow a distinctively whimsical Protestant phrase — a come-to-Jesus moment about divorce and remarriage in the Orthodox Church. Economia by definition is meant to be an exception, but in North America it has all but turned into a rule, automatic dispensation granted to second, and yes, even third marriages.
So I say again — how do we expect gays to follow Church teaching on marriage and sexuality when we don’t appear to be serious about following it either. All the rhetoric about defending marriage just sounds like so much hypocrisy and double standards, because it is.
Mark, if what you describe is actual then it is wrong. The fact that it’s not an issue on this blog (although I’m sure we would all condemn it as well) is because it’s not the parents of cohabiting children who have mandated that the Church change its moral tradition.
You’re right, the Church should be “serious” about catechesis to all its followers regarding the moral tradition. You’ll have no argument from me. I doubt from anybody else for that matter.
RE: “All the rhetoric about defending marriage just sounds like so much hypocrisy and double standards, because it is.”
“All,” Mr. Fisus? Do you wish to walk back that sweeping, unreasonable, extreme claim?
As a staunch defender and consistent practitioner of Orthodox marriage (which is, by definition, traditional marriage contra the perverse forms now blessed and enforced in our debased society) in my personal life and pastoral ministry, I reject categorically your aspersions on my character as marked by “hypocrisy and double standards.”
Sir, you may be a spotless example in your own ministry, but like it or not, it is part of the larger ministry of the Church, and taken as a whole, it is hypocritical when we say one thing to homosexuals but then act differently towards straight people.
I suppose “take as a whole” is a retreat from your previous use of “all” to describe what you deem the “hypocrisy and double standards” of “the Church” regarding sexual sins. Your main point remains, however, otiose, shrill, uncharitable, and grounded in mere personal anecdotes.
Mr. Fisus, there is a difference between homosexualists and sexually perverse non-homsexual that being the fact as has been stated here frequently there is not an ideological and political push on the part of the others who are perverse to overwhelm and force the Church to change her teachings and practice.
As much as our unwillingness to deal as forth-rightly as we should contributes to the ideology your comments are too broad and have the rhetorical style of a provocateur rather than someone really facing short comings.
The call of the Church is “Repent”. Your call is “Since you have not done enough repentance IMO you have no business calling anyone to repentance now.”
That is beyond silly and specious.
There has been no need for them to. They have taken over in a much more insidious and infective way by normalizing immodesty and promiscuity in the popular culture. Everything is cheap, everything caters to the lowest common denominator, everything is right because it feels good.
Mr. E. Fisus isn’t far off in his assessment. And Fr. Alexander hit the nail right on the head–we live in a debased society.
We live in a nihilist society and everything is debased. We need to up good a simple rule for sexual purity: abstinence and chastity before marriage. Fidelity and chastity after marriage. But that won’t help if we cannot even uphold the fundamental understanding of marriage as a union of a man and a woman imbued with God’s grace.
Just because we have equivocated on proper sexual standards is not an excuse to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Repentance is in order as usual.
Prof. SS Verhovskoy once published a small pamphlet on Christian Marriage where he very clearly noted that the worst heterosexual relationship, characterized by whatever sexual or any other perversity (e.g. domestic violence, addiction, etc.) one can imagine, nevertheless will always maintain the miraculous possibility of the intervention of the Holy Spirit to be transformed into that which is acceptable and well-pleasing to God. The same can never be said for same-sex relationships. For this reason alone, it is not hypocrisy “when we say one thing to homosexuals but then act differently towards straight people.”
I am delighted to concur with you and the distinguished, late Prof. Verhovsky on the issue of homosexual sex acts as contra-naturam and contra-evangelium.
Mark
I don’t think any priest knowingly is communing heterosexual cohabitating partners.
It is similar to the birth gender requirement for a bathroom.
Skirts up
Pants down
Never saw that before – what is it? Are you a boy or a girl. (levity please)
But the priest holding the Chalice:
Address please
Deacon run it through the list and cross check.
Denied
Next
?
Neither is how it works.
What you might know from the social circle is probably quite a bit different than a priest with a prepared sermon on a Sunday.
And Communion is on the honor system anyhow. I saw a priest turn someone away once in my entire life, well, heard about it. It had to do with not going to Confession for years.
Gail,
I am both fascinated and amused that you bring your question to the den of the 12 Blind Men and an Elephant. While you are absolutely, 100% correct about men having reached a point of having no other way to relate deep emotions except by feelings of sexuality – I have personal views that begin with, “Men are frail, emotionally disabled dogs…” – it’s pointless to write them here. If you’re interested, I guess just whistle…
Nevertheless, there is an outrageous amount of chauvinism in the church that is hidden behind self-righteous defensiveness, supposedly defending against “radical feminism.” Somehow, oppressing and intimidating women in general is nothing of the sort among the Orthodox, relying on St. Paul’s admonishment, “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted to them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also said the law. ” (1 Cor. 14:34). Now certainly there is significant “theology” behind this admonition? Certainly there must be cause, for example, that some get all worked up that a woman would read the Epistle during the Liturgy when there are capable & competent men standing around, or elderly women are cleaning the altar, or nuns are serving in the altar at a women’s monastery? What does our Father Chrysostom have to say on the matter:
Well there you have it. And people would complain about Freud and his theory of hysteria, for heaven’s sake! Too dumb, too loud, too flighty. And think about the story of the meeting of the Lord and the Samaritan woman at the well, always carefully framed to emphasize the fact that she says to Him, ” ‘How is it that you, being a Jew, ask drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria?’ for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.” (Jn. 4:9) Yet, nothing is made of the later points that “The woman then left her water pot, and went her way into the city, and said to the men, ‘Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did…” (v.28) or that the narrative concludes, “”And many more believed because of his own word; And said to the woman, ‘Now we believe, not because of your saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world.'” (v41-42) Too dumb, too loud, too flighty. We’ll go see for ourselves.
I have attempted to use the analogy of psychotherapy – in the word “joining” – that sets aside all of the nuanced and complicated differences that separate us, and focuses on what is common to us spiritually & emotionally: no, I could never understand what it is like to be a woman, and it would be ridiculous to try. But if we can learn to trust each other, feel safe on an emotional & spiritual level that increasingly reveals vulnerabilities and accepts correction without fear, the fact that I am a man and you are a woman is of very little significance. Obviously I over-simplify a very complex process, but it is the only way a trusting and nurturing relationship will occur. If a spiritual father is to be a “father,” how can he “get out of the way?” A father is vital, active, and directive, not a stage dummy. But this will not happen until both sides in the equation change. And someone must assume the leadership role. It’s their move.
Where is the “stunning reversal?” This is another selective pundit using tired, outdated studies to swipe at other tired, outdated pundits. Would you publish my essay in response to Laura A. Haynes, Ph.D., Fr. Hans? Hell, no, you would not. You resort to the ugliest form of manipulation as “a recognized authority on the impact of ideology and narrative on culture”: censorship. You need to end your references to Solzhenitsyn, as words only have power when they are are available, without manipulation, and seen within their aggregate.
In the end, however, how much plain old common sense does it take to read this conclusion:
is far different from Fr. Hans saying, “If a person person (sic) experiences homosexual desire and wishes to change into normative heterosexuality, abundant evidence exists that such a change is may (sic) indeed be possible.” Fr. Hans, Dr. Haynes says, “There is little research on gender identity.” The evidence is anything but abundant. We should be doing research. Wait! We can’t! Why? Because the APA’s (psychology/psychiatry), social workers, family & marital therapist, and so on have all declared such research is harmful & unethical, meaning a university could lose its funding and professionals could lose their licensing. Wait, Fr. Hans, “There is little research on gender identity,” how could it be harmful or unethical?
My only consolation, Fr. Hans, is that you are so widely ignored that when you post such trash, it is insignificant; and when Mr. Michalopulos further disseminates it, someone like me is here to put it into perspective. It is truly unfortunate that you stoop to the hypocrisy of censorship on your site, but, at least in this case, I am reasonably confident Mr. Michalopulos will publish something even he disputes.
Yes! Homosexuality is a behavior, not an identity, and of course a sin. Many Christians are outraged with legalized Gay marriage, as we should. No matter how loud we scream, no one with the political power to stop or reverse the madness, hears us.
Even our Spiritual leaders are mute to the sins of our political leaders, perhaps in fear that that won’t be invited to the next White House function, or Party Convention, which apparently adding Jesus Christ, or ending the prayer with the Trinity is forbidden . For God’s sake abortion has been legal for nearly 50 years now, and what have any of our churches leaders done to reverse this evil, which is much worst than what is happening with Gay marriage. Millions of little souls murdered, and no one the streets screaming from the roof tops, except perhaps a few Evangelicals every now and then. Our Orthodox church is losing it’s flock, here and abroad, in Greece, church is part of the culture more than the spiritual hospital, it’s Prime Minister would not even put his hand on the Bible, yet our Bishops just keep the wheel rolling no changes needed for them, don’t want to rock the boat, just keep the checks rolling in.
As much as I appreciate this site, and the info on matters of the day, what good is it preaching to the choir, and debating details in matters that will never see change, but just continue to get worse. In this fallen world, we can only proclaim the Gospel, and await the return of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! Until then buckle up and pray that our Lord will have mercy on us.
This was a very well-written piece, which solidifies the fact that sexual identity is far more fluid than absolute. I know this was the case with my brother-in-law, Bobby, who was a Top Gun pilot and quite the “ladies man.” He had a different ski bunny on our annual ski trips to Mammoth. I could see why. He was handsome, intelligent and just an all around great guy.
One day I was getting ready to go to a family BBQ. My sister-in-law called my husband and said, “I don’t want to shock you, but Bobby is now a woman and her name is Nichole.” We were just about to walk out the door and I thought of my 5 year-old daughter and how I was going to explain to her that her favorite uncle was going to look like a girl. I also worried about my 15 year-old son and how he was going to take the news.
We got to the BBQ and there “she” was, overdressed and behaving “as if” he were a woman, which of course he hadn’t quite mastered. Unbeknownst to us, he had been living as a woman for quite some time and was just about to have the corrective surgery. My husband greeted Bobby as he usually did, by shaking his hand and saying, “How have you been, guy?” Reddening, when the words tumbled out of his mouth.
Unlike the rest of the family, I was mad. In my mind this manufactured “Nichole” had taken away my Bobbie, a guy I genuinely loved. It was like she killed him. I could not wait to get this person alone so I could see exactly what was happening. The conversation went like this:
Me: Bobby, there is NO WAY I’m calling you Nichole. What the hell happened to you? Have you always felt like a woman or is this one of your weird little experiments?
Bobby: I have not always felt this way, but I do now. I met this guy I really like, but he is not gay.
Me: Since when did you start liking guys?
Bobby: Since now.
Me: You seriously have no reservations about having your $%^& cut off for a guy???
Bobby: Actually, I do. I have been “Bobby” for a very long time and it has worked for me. I don’t know if I can do this, but I’m going to do it anyway.
Me: Bobby, being a woman is not easy. When those hormones kick in, your body is going to change. You won’t be as strong or fit. You will take on a pear shape as you age. You will never pass entirely for a woman because you’re NOT a woman. (At this point, my 3 year old niece, who had NOT been prepared for the transition, came down the stairs, took one look at Bobby and said, “She’s a he.”)
There was no dissuading him. His only concession was settling on the name Bobbie instead of Nichole, because we kept getting it mixed up. – I talked with her intended, Tom, and asked him if he had introduced Bobbie to his teenage son and the rest of his family. He said he hadn’t because he wanted Bobbie to have the surgery first, because he was not gay and did not want to confuse anybody.
In the case of transsexuals, it is amazing how much traction .3% of the population has obtained at the expense of everyone else. Our country is based on the premise that the majority rules. The majority, i.e. 99.7% of the population, do not need our public restrooms reassigned. It is insane to cater to such a small percentage of the population, bending over backwards to give them special rights and protections under the law that only apply to them.
With Muslims, it’s also less than 1%. We already have the prohibition of hate crimes in America; why should any special emphasis be placed on protecting them?
Over 70% of our nation identify as Christian. That is a clear majority. We ARE a Christian nation and we should start acting like one.
What determines whether or not ours is a Christian nation is how the people live their lives, not how they respond to asinine surveys.
Gail, do you believe that not only 70% identify as Christian, but that 70% ARE Christian?
Do you know that of the Russians who identify themselves as Russian Orthodox a sizable percentage say they don’t believe in God?
Interesting questions, Your Grace. I feel like I’m in college and one of my professors has called on me in front of the class. I may get the answers wrong, but I’ll take a shot.
Your second question is easier so I’ll try to answer it first: I know there is a conflation between church and nation among some Russians, which might explain why they would say they were Russian Orthodox, when they don’t believe in God. I want to say it’s phyletism, but that might not be the right word.
However, it’s not something we typically see here with respect to Christianity. Our identity is more closely tied to our governing principles; the primary one being democracy. If more than 50% support something (it could be anything), majority rules. Therefore, if more than 50% of us identify as Christian, we’re a Christian nation.
Now for your first question: I suppose if you are a child or intellectually challenged and your care givers TELL you you’re Christian, you might not be, because you wouldn’t know what it means, but I doubt there are many people who KNOW what it means and say they are Christian, if they’re not. That doesn’t necessarily mean they’re practicing Christians, which begs the question how Christian does one have to be, to be Christian?! What does it even mean? If SAYING you are Christian is sufficient to BE Christian, then yes, I’d say 70% of us are Christian!
One of the things George can attest to is that I say things because they feel right. Perhaps there is some brain activity associated with my feelings, but if that’s the case, I’m not cognizant of it! I actually took logic in high school and college and all my teachers said the same thing: “Gail, I have no idea how you consistently come up with the right answers, because the way you go about it is all wrong!” I got all As, but they weren’t As based on what they taught me. I understood it, but it seemed tedious to me, because I could just look at a problem and know the answer. Not much has changed on that front. I AM right a lot of the time and I feel there is enough “Christian” in the U.S. to justify saying we’re a Christian nation. So there you have it.
I hope that Gail Sheppard’s cousin Bobby didn’t go through with his plan, which I’m sure is a satanic delusion. And I pray that this story ended well.
It’s rare among us orthodox Christians to experience demonic possession, but I have no doubt that the delusion of being/wanting to be of the opposite sex is an experience of being possessed by the evil one. It’s not possible, on a purely human level, for us to be so at war within ourselves against our own self-understanding.
But our Lord Jesus Christ can relieve people being so tormented and heal them. Let us all pray to Him like all the people who brought the sick to Him, the people whom He healed and saved because of the faith of their friends.
Let us pray intensely for all of them, and beg the Lord’s mercy for them and for us all.
Sadly, he did, Father James. . . 20 years ago.
Oh, dear Gail, I’m so sad to hear this.
But tell us: Did he and Tom actually make a life together, or was it all for naught? How does he feel about becoming an old lady?
I ask only because so many ‘transsexuals’ kill themselves after ‘sex-reassignment surgery’ turns out not to have solved their putative problems.
To Father James:
Yes, they actually did make a life together. They have been together all this time (20+ years). – Bobby doesn’t talk to me about it. I still love the person God created who is in there somewhere, but after this happened, everything changed between us. The husband has a wandering eye. It’s hard not to notice and I’m sure it makes Bobby feel terrible. – I have seen them only a handful of times since the surgery. They are kind people. They are generous and thoughtful. If I had to guess, I don’t think Bobby would do it over again. I sense a sadness there. He is no longer the good looking guy, whose sense of humor bordered on the audacious. He is necessarily reserved and laughs at Tom’s jokes now. (I’ve had to go back over this simple paragraph and change the pronouns and the name from Bobby to Bobbie and then back to Bobby, again. – It is still so confusing.)
Thanks, dear Gail. I appreciate your sensitivity and your forthrightness. When Bobby needs a shoulder to cry on, I can’t imagine your not being there for him. You and your family are in my prayers.
Most folks who “identify” as Christian barely know the meaning of the word.
I suspect there are some in the clergy, and even more in the Body, who don’t know the meaning, either. Even the Apostles didn’t understand until Pentecost. Just because we don’t know what it means to be fully Christian, doesn’t necessarily mean were not. We are Christian, imperfectly, just as we are in everything else. Who decides where to draw the line? You? Me? Might was well be a self-assessment. It’s about as reliable as anything you or I could come up with, right?
Based upon the expert opinions of Drs. Hayne and Diamond, “Individuals with no exclusive patterns of attraction are indisputability the ‘norm’.” If one ascribes to the principles of natural law, wherein the moral standards that govern human behavior are objectively derived from the nature of human beings and the nature of the world, normative human sexuality is “indisputably” bisexual, heterosexuality and homosexuality being the minority exceptions. Is Father Hans Jacobse suggesting that moral theologians revise their positions on normative human sexuality based on the principles of natural law?
Drs Hayne and Diamond appear to agree with those physical anthropologists that assert that all humans are born as omni sexuals, stimulated by anything, animal, vegetable or mineral, who are trained in and by their culture to make the distinctions eternally under discussion, no?
Gender theory is simply psychological warfare parading as a civil rights cause. It’s an outpost of transhumanism whose esoteric initiates believe evolution can and should be tweaked to reach a higher state of being and consciousness. It also demonizes “binary” thinking, making traditional notions of the self, sexuality, and marriage verboten. The philosophical coherence of gender theory has yet to be seriously challenged because gender theory has spent a great deal of time kicking around on the fringe of academic ghettos. Judith Butler, perhaps the most recognized name in gender theory, isn’t respected as a philosopher, sociologist, historian, literary critic, anthropologist, or psychologist. Ensconced at Berkeley, her book “Gender Trouble” is a miss-mash of warmed over Lacan, Foucault, Irigaray, and sundry others. She buys into Lacan’s reading of Saussure and the separation of “signifier” from “signified,” accepting the post structuralist claim that meaning is a play of signifiers and interpretation. From here, Lacan, interested in separating Freud from a biological foundation, argued in so many words that the self, too, is a play of meanings and interpretations. Butler ran with the idea, ignoring all kinds of arguments to the contrary, and appropriated Foucault and his take on Nietzsche and Heidegger to argue that gender is socially constructed. I don’t know what the psychiatric profession has to say about gender theory or its history. But, in terms of academic philosophy, Butler at best lacks rigor and is at worst a charlatan.
Interestingly enough, if one accepts Butler’s views and the kind of gender theory she has defended, there isn’t any reason why one couldn’t claim to be the reincarnation of, say, Mary Queen of Scots. Instead of being transgendered one could be transhistorical: if I believe in the deepest parts of my being that I am the reincarnation of Mary Queen of Scots, who is to tell me I’m not? I might even start dressing in her style of clothing, ask for my driver’s license to be changed, and demand others refer to me in a way that respects my royal status. If they don’t comply, I’ll get the Office of Civil Rights and any number of Soros-funded or NGO supported activist groups to come to my defense.
In response to spatrick regarding “what the psychiatric profession has to say about gender theory,” rather than furthering an evolutionary, theoretical model of gender, allow me to describe the “construct” as it exists “on the ground.”
Anyone trained in psychiatry will immediately recognize a presentation of “permanent and unshakeable non-bizarre beliefs” that are clearly refutable with evidence, yet despite the refutation, the beliefs develop into an “increasingly elaborate and complex system.” But surprisingly – and uncharacteristically – they are “accompanied by preservation of clear and orderly thinking,” and “with few other signs of personality or thought disturbance.” To what do I refer? ICD-10-CM Diagnosis Code F22, Delusional Disorders. You will note that these beliefs and the subsequent delusional system developed around them are not “psychotic” – in other words, with the notable exception of a specific set of beliefs, the patient is not impaired as to the difference between fantasy and reality. Continuing, it is traditionally the opinion that a delusional belief must include the possibility of truth. For example, my wife – who is unaccustomed to psychotic and delusional patients – asked me my opinion of a female Naval officer who drove from Roanoke, VA to San Diego to report “corruption,” only to find she had been followed the entire way by Naval “investigators” intent on stopping her. In the end, having ruled out other medical conditions, I concluded she was delusional. Why? If you believe in such matters to begin, certainly her belief is feasible, and the clinical judgement, then, is to its likelihood. And if I may use your Mary Queen of Scotts example, traditionally, the clinical measurement of likelihood was sufficient for any court of law. Or so I thought.
I again move this discussion to the case conference of my former employer, essentially a psychiatry/medication clinic, where a patient is described as a “transitioning” transgender, female-to-male, with mixed anxiety/ depression that result in impairment in social & occupational functioning, etc., etc. “He” has already begun a course of hormone replacement therapy and is “cross-dressing as a heterosexual male.” I asked under what diagnosis this patient was received for treatment: generalized anxiety and major depressive disorder. I then asked, “Aren’t cross-dressing, anxiety & depression, a persistent desire for the physical characteristics and social roles that connote the opposite biological sex, and clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other areas of functioning all symptoms of Gender identity disorder in adolescence and adulthood (ICD-10-CM Diagnosis Code F64.1)?” Silence. I continued, “Aren’t you, in effect, proposing to treat the symptoms of the disorder, rather than the disorder?” This led to a very heated discussion informing me of my “bias or worse,” and the director informing me of San Diego County’s requirement that I address such a patient as they wished to addressed pursuant to their “gender preference,” and that I was obligated to chart him/her according to their “gender preference.” And in a moment I would liken to crossing the line of a baseball umpire, one of the psychiatrists suggested I might “explore” the issue of my own “transphobia.” I noted to him that, having received the identical training as him, and, theoretically having placed before me a male by gender at birth; absent of any of the 14 known genetic conditions that result in genital ambiguity; absent of any neurological disorder, derangement, or trauma; absent of any endocrinological disorder or disease; or any medical or genetic condition, disease, state or mimic that might confuse one into concluding a disorder exists, who insists that she is, contrary to my observation and examination, is a woman. When asked as to how she has arrived at this conclusion, she states, ‘I feel it. I know that I was intended to be a woman, and was misassigned in the wrong body.’ In any other circumstance, we would reasonably conclude this is delusion.” I asked to be relieved of the responsibility of providing treatment to these patients, as I was unqualified. I would refer you to the recent article by Drs. Mayer & McHugh and their commentary on transgender.
Finally, I would note that I have attempted numerous times to explain to Fr. Hans that the word gender – from the ancient Greek γένος, referring to genus among common animals, birds, fish and so on is found in Aristotle & Herodotus; of a specific race by Herodotus & Aristophanes; and of a specific family or house by Plutarch & Herodotus. – as the appropriate word to distinguish male from female. I could be wrong, But this seems quite consistent with the Orthodox anthropology.
M. Stankovich — very interesting; thanks for the response. I have had to come at this issue from a different angle as it has appeared in academic settings and in the bathroom policy of a local school. I don’t have anything approaching the expertise necessary on the clinical side so my reaction is based on the academic roots of gender theory that, oddly enough, seems to have filtered down to the activists agitating for the regulation of pronouns, the opening of locker rooms and bathrooms, and changes to the sex ed curriculum. From tracing its roots in the radical wing of the Liberal Arts in our colleges and universities to safe spaces, triggers, and micro-aggressions all the rage on campuses now, it seems to me to be a sort of psychological warfare intended to undermine traditional notions associated with personhood, sexuality, and marriage: if I can control speech then, at some level, I can control the other person’s thought and, in important ways, their perception of reality. There is an esoteric side to this but that involves a trip down the rabbit hole many might find absurd and bizarre. In any case, thank you for your note.
Truth is Truth. Truth is absolutely Perfect. Jesus Christ is, and always was, and always will be the Truth. These mind miners can dig up anything they can dream up from the human mind and emotion, especially carnal desires. What is Truth, mused Pilate, not seeing it, or knowing it. He knew the ways of the world. He CYOA’s himself as best he could, saying the Christ was innocent, but still acted as if the Christ was guilty. These educated fools invent the same CYOA ( having it both ways) concerning what the Truth condemns as a soul destroying sin. The Word of God teaches plainly what keeps you spiritually alive and what desolates and destroys the soul. Homosexuality destroys spiritual life. This is not up for debate, because it is what the Truth says it is. I believe the Truth. Ask Sodom and Gomorrah how they liked their hell fire and brimstone. Apparently there is an even worse punishment which is more intolerable than what.happened to Sodom. No joy in this, just sorrow.
It seems to that what is always absent from these discussions of gender dysphoria and transgendered people is an appreciation for the enormity and depth of their suffering; and it is easy enough to do, particularly when their legitimate “needs” apply to such a limited demographic; have become politicized for the agenda of others; and are leveraged against people of faith. Nevertheless, even if you wish to conclude that their “dysphoria” is purely a devastating psychological crisis – and wish to quote Dr. Paul McHugh, co-author of the New Atlantic article that swept through this site, “We do not treat psychiatric problems with surgery,” as he personally led the fight to stop reassignment surgery at Johns Hopkins University Hospital – bear in mind that McHugh was also the pioneer who designed the initial surgical protocol that was the “solution” to gender dysphoria. He, more than anyone, understood the human tragedy of gender dysphoria, the disorder, if only because he was alone in attempting to address it.
I have described a work-related, clinical example of being forced by a system to support what I hold to be an unethical position of collusion in denial, but I did not intend to give the impression that I do not, nor should not have compassion for these individuals, neither of which is the case. I have posted two landmark studies to this site with my own commentary, indicating that the rate of co-occurring psychopathology among these “sexual minorities” is staggering, particularly among school-age children, at a rate 40% greater than the general population. There was not a single comment, save the typical filth that I was promoting the “Syosset/Crestwood, blah, blah,blah…”
Further, it is coming up on two years since I raised this issue that we have absolutely no policy, nor “mission,” nor any formal discussion of which I am aware that would address someone who would repent of this disfiguration of reassignment surgery and return to the church. You cannot “undo” such surgery, and the order to “just start living in the gender of your birth” is naive foolishness. We are too busy projecting the phobic hatred of the Christian Right to make room in our hearts for compassion.
Props to you, Gail, sincerely, for the courage it took to share this personal information in this place. I am sorry to say, however, that I fully believe that if the same thing had come from me – or worse yet, a stranger seeking compassion – the ruthless bombardment of filth and degrading commentary would yet to have ended.
Michael wrote:
“Further, it is coming up on two years since I raised this issue that we have absolutely no policy, nor “mission,” nor any formal discussion of which I am aware that would address someone who would repent of this disfiguration of reassignment surgery and return to the church. You cannot “undo” such surgery, and the order to “just start living in the gender of your birth” is naive foolishness. We are too busy projecting the phobic hatred of the Christian Right to make room in our hearts for compassion. ”
Perhaps our ancestors had the right approach:
http://www.voskrese.info/spl/aposcanon.html
THE APOSTOLIC CANONS
Canon XXI.
An eunuch, if he has been made so by the violence of men [some mss. add: or if his virilia have been amputated] in times of persecution, or if he has been born so, if in other respects he is worthy, may be made a bishop.
Canon XXII.
He who has mutilated himself, cannot become a clergyman, for he is a self-murderer, and an enemy to the workmanship of God.
Canon XXIII.
If any man being a clergyman shall mutilate himself, let him be deposed, for he is a self-murderer.
Canon XXIV.
If a layman mutilate himself, let him be excommunicated for three years, as practising against his own life.
So, for non clergy, 3 years excommunication, can we not follow that?
Michael S my friend. You complain that no one understands, accepts or acts on what you say. As I have said before part of that is the way in which you write. Here at least your posts are bombastic seeming thickets of almost impenetrable prose that comes across as part Olympian edicts, part self-agrandizing rhetoric, part condescending dismissal, part sentimental grandpa stories, part jargon and insult and sometimes you are just plain wrong.
You might want to try The Little Red Writing Book or some other book on effective writing.
Michael Bauman, after my heart. Your words are the among the very few on this site worthy of my attention and trust, and you are well aware of that. The issue here, it seems to me, is the same issue we have argued for six or so years, appearance. I write the way I write: succinctly, directly, carefully chosen words, and to the point. Period. I make no apology. The wonderful difference between the internet and the lecture hall is that you need not read anyone you choose not to read.
Secondly, Michael, I learned long ago that only a fool attributes “successes,” however they happen to manifest, to themselves, and that it is a great blessing from God Who keeps hidden any good you happen to facilitate – as a clinician or teacher – lest you fall into pride. Likewise, I don’t come here to meet my “ego needs”; I’m not here try to establish influence, “make a name” for myself, gain “respect, blah, blah, blah. I’m at the end of my career, not the beginning; I’m respected by my colleagues; I don’t need more friends; I don’t need”followers” or disciples. And most importantly, I have absolutely no need to be correct because it is about me personally. I would note that it is the long tradition of the Church to comfort, encourage, and instruct one another with stories of the lives of the saints and of those faithful, who may or may not be saints by revelation, but whose lives in the faith are inspiring and encouraging. This has always been a contemporaneous practice in times of active persecution, and in my mind, whenever “support” in difficult spiritual times seems appropriate. Again, if “grandpa stories” are somehow offensive, or as someone else referred to them as “name dropping,” exercise your adult prerogative to pass them by.
Finally, as to your point regarding “self-agrandizing (sic) rhetoric, part condescending dismissal,” I would note that this is self-limited and select, generally reserved for the usual suspects, who are willing to rely upon self-authority and undeserved reputation or title, who in the loftiest of terms will pretty much say anything, to anyone, and claim it is of “the church, of “medical science,” or “the truth.” I believe you seriously confuse my indignation, intolerance, and authority for self-aggrandizing and being condescendingly dismissal. My thought: if you cannot tolerate being corrected, and you cannot apologize when you are wrong, you are fundamentally untrustworthy. And when I am wrong, Michael Bauman, I invite correction.
Michael S. There is no mission because our hearts have grown cold. As the local Church we have yet to even begin to love this country. As a people we are frequently antiquarian chroniclers of theological positions more Pharisaical than Christian more ideological than faithful.
Orthodox mission grows from two things: loving God and loving other people. They have to come together in one person at the right time and be empowered by God’s call.
Practically speaking we are living in the old country more than we are living here.
We want to be recognized as a local Church? We need to act like one by loving this land and her people not living in a false bubble of sanctimony or trying to pursue a cowardly quietism or some ideology we try to dress up in Christian words and sentiment.
Of course there is also the possibility that there is no real need, yet, for a mission. We do not have to create anything new. We have to be willing and able to respond to the pains, needs and sins of people, real people.