Lest you think that liberal theologians and churchmen are innocuous in this world, have a gander at this article from Saturday’s Telegraph, “Lord Carey backs Christian psychotherapist in ‘gay conversion’ row.”
In short, Lesley Pilkington, a British psychotherapist, was de-licensed because she tried to convert a gay man of his homosexuality, who turned out to be a gay journalist who was investigating her. (I doubt whether he asked to be cured, but I’ll check). As the Telegraph notes:
The therapy practised by Mrs Pilkington had been described as “absurd” by the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) and roundly condemned by the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
Nevertheless, Pilkington was defended by “liberal” Anglican bigwigs, who apparently see homosexuality as a mental disorder:
In a letter to her professional body, Lord Carey – along with a number of senior figures – suggests Mrs Pilkington is herself a victim of entrapment whose therapy should be supported.
His comments – in a letter co-signed by, among others, the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the former Bishop of Rochester and the Rt Rev Wallace Benn, the Bishop of Lewes – will cause controversy in the gay community and beyond.
The joint letter states: “Psychological care for those who are distressed by unwanted homosexual attractions has been shown to yield a range of beneficial client outcomes, especially in motivated clients … Such therapy does not produce harm despite the Royal College of Psychiatrists and others maintaining the contrary.”
It concludes: “Competent practitioners, including those working with biblical Judeo-Christian values, should be free to assist those seeking help.”
The incident took place when award-winning journalist Patrick Strudwick asked Pilkington to treat him in 2009.
On the tape, Mr Strudwick asks Mrs Pilkington if she views homosexuality as “a mental illness, an addiction or an anti religious phenomenon”. She replies: “It is all of that.”
Last year, Mr Strudwick said: “Entering into therapy with somebody who thinks I am sick … is the singularly most chilling experience of my life.
“If a black person goes to a GP and says I want skin bleaching treatment, that does not put the onus on the practitioner to deliver the demands of the patient. It puts the onus on the health care practitioner to behave responsibly.”
This isn’t completely cut and dried since Strudwick asked Pilkington to help him, and he’s been accused of entrapment. On the other hand, what Pilkington did violated all professional standards of how to deal with problems like this. Homosexuality is certainly not a mental illness, an addiction, or—as Andrew Sullivan might attest—an “anti religious phenomenon.” I suspect that the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy and the Royal College of Psychiatrists would know more about the issue than a couple of “liberal” Anglicans.
h/t: Grania Spingies
Just one comment on this. Lord Carey is not, and never was, a liberal Anglican. He is an evangelical, and a profoundly literalist one.
Yes, I was going to say that, too.
He also promoted many fundies to positions of great influence in the Anglican churches.
The Anglican churches have some progressive clergy, but also more than their share of regressive nutjobs.
Ray (former Episcopalian, among other things)
Carey was Archbishop of Canterbury (1991-2002). According to W*k*p*d**:
He opposed homosexual relationships among members of the clergy, although he admits to having consecrated two bishops whom he suspected of having same-sex partners.[citation needed] He presided over the Lambeth Conference of 1998 and actively supported the resolution at that conference which uncompromisingly rejected all homosexual practice as “incompatible with scripture”.[citation needed]
Carey was criticised for his lack of neutrality on the issue of homosexuality by those attempting to reach a compromise position which had been presented to the conference by a working group of bishops on human sexuality. Carey also voted against an expressed condemnation (which had been present in the original form of the resolution) of homophobia. The resolution as a whole was described by one of Carey’s fellow primates, Richard Holloway, Bishop of Edinburgh and Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church, as a betrayal.[citation needed]
Carey said: “If this conference is known by what we have said about homosexuality, then we will have failed.” The resolution, however, was the beginning of an escalating crisis of unity within the Anglican Communion around the question of human sexuality which continues. This resolution is at the heart of current divisions within the Anglican Communion on the issue. In 1999 he was one of four English bishops who expressly declined to sign the Cambridge Accord: an attempt to find agreement on affirming certain human rights of homosexuals, notwithstanding differences within the church on the morality of homosexual behaviour. In an interview with Sir David Frost in 2002 he said: “I don’t believe in blessing same-sex relationships because frankly I don’t know what I’m blessing.”
(And he knows what he’s doing when he’s “blessing” something?)
I think the article’s comment on a black person asking for skin bleaching pretty much undercuts that charge. A similar issue arises in individuals with Body Integrity Identity Disorder, a disorder where people feel they would be happier as an amputee. Presumably we would not allow doctors to saw the limbs off of otherwise healthy people just because they asked, and any physician who made such offer to an investigative journalist could hardly claim “entrapment” as a defence.
What Eric said. Lord Carey is NOT a liberal Anglican. He is an outspoken conservative evangelical.
I always find it puzzling that so many men object to other men being gay. Surely other men being gay is always a good thing if you are a man? If you are gay then it increases the number of potential partners, if you are straight then it decreases the competition.
Given that so many women also prefer gay men, it seems like the whole world would be better and happier if (nearly) all men were gay.
Of course, we have no free will in the matter….
The homophobic male has no problem with aggressive male sexuality, until he begins to imagine that he is the target of another man’s lust.
At that point, he’s all “ZOMG!! RAPIST! HELP!!”
Homosexuality would be an “anti religious phenomenon”? It’s almost enough to make this heterosexual guy become gay. It is a choice, isn’t it?
Jerry, judging by the items I’ve been reading here recently, one might begin to think you’ve secretly moved to the UK. If so might we all meet up for a pint?
If Pilkington had been merely a priest and a homosexual person of the same faith believed too that their sexual orientation was wrong then it might be understandable that they go to Pilkington and that Pilkington attempt to treat them. Nonsense, but understandable nonsense: understandable in that both parties are playing the same fantasy game.
The issue here is that Pilkington, as a registered psychotherapist, should only be offering treatments on conditions their profession deems a condition that should be treated. That it was entrapment shouldn’t matter, in terms of being barred.
I know a local doctor’s practice in which the husband and wife doctors regularly ask patients to take part in prayer at the end of consultations. Hardly professional.
That isn’t entrapment. Entrapment, by definition, involves deliberately encouraging someone to commit an act that they would not do otherwise. Tricking someone, by providing an opportunity to do something that they’re inclined to do anyway, is not entrapment. For the definition to reasonably apply, the doctor would had to have been repeatedly begged, or emotionally blackmailed.
I think these misunderstandings of entrapment are deliberately encouraged, as they are very useful to the police. For example, some criminals believe that police officers are not allowed to deny working for the police if asked. Needless to say, the police are in no rush to correct this misconception.
Yup. Case in point: any “Johns” sting operation. (female police officers posing as street pros) Amazingly effective operations, and 100% legal (not entrapment).
Just because it’s ‘legal’ does not mean it’s not entrapment… our law enforcment agencies engage in lots of entrapment behaviors. And there are very strict rules anyhow, the accused must broach the subject of his own volition, if the officer makes overt attempts to suggest payment and to seduce the accused, it very likely will be thrown out.
Ummm, we haven’t heard from Andrew lately. Maybe this mention of his name will lure him out of his cave.
This ‘curing gay adolescents’ seems to be some epidemic: it is spreading amongst Dutch protestants and Jews – but not without protest! See:
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2012/01/christian_antigay_therapy_is_b.php
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=religion&sc2=news&sc3=&id=129130
The catholic viewpoint on homosexuality was and is clear and simple – only that they probably prescribe exorcism instead of ‘therapy’?
http://www.examiner.com/city-buzz-in-los-angeles/pope-benedict-xvi-blasts-gay-marriage
What is the current thinking on the reason for “gayness”? Is it in the genes as a result of the difficulty in rearing many children in distant evolutionary times? That is in stable populations, there may not be a problem giving birth to ten to fifteen children but the success rate in keeping them alive into the next generation implies only two survivors within the family. Would it not be better to throw up perhaps the odd non-breeding child to help in rearing and protection of the rest? In that evolution does things in the easiest way possible, it would therefore be simplest for the sexual urge to be simply tweaked to throw it towards a member of the same sex every now and then.
Why look for an adaptive reason at all?
Well simply because there needs to be an answer to the proposition that gayness is a lifestyle choice and not something that one is born with. It answers the simplistic theory that there could not be any gay gene or whatever because this would simply be snuffed out due to its inability to reproduce itself.
There’s probably several biological ‘reasons’ for being ‘gay’ (which is probably not a single thing in itself) and there are several relatively recent reviews on it. One explanation that I recall that is not to do with genes is maternal influence – increased immunisation of mothers to male-specific antigens that influence sexual differentiation in the foetal brain means that with more sons, the chance of one being homosexual increases. So its a side-effect of a strong maternal immune system!
Yes but history records the existence of gay tendencies right back to biblical times when obviously no immunization could have taken place.
Do what now?
Hahahaha. Laughing out loud here.
You just rode yourself off the rails.
When he said “immunization”, he meant naturally occurring maternal antibodies acting on fetal development.
Naturally occurring. Not as a result of any external immunization.
So, it would not be “genetic” but rather “developmental” in nature. This would not be a unique situation. For example, there is evidence that certain types of schizophrenia may be related to maternal exposure to influenza virus during the first trimester of pregnancy.
Thanks Kevin. I should add that such antigens are hypothetical
Actually even if there were a “gay gene” it’s not obvious it would be selected against. One could imagine, for instance, a gene that made males gay but made females more fertile.
Well o.k. (just). I am not sure that females are as fertile as possible anyway under normal evolutionary pressure. I do not see why a gay gene in males would produce extra fertility in females without a fantastically unlikely turn of events.
@ Robin
No, dude, it’s a hypothetical gene that in women leads to increased fertility. If a women passes it on to a male offspring, it causes them to be more likely to be sexually attracted to men (one thing that people tend to ignore in these sorts of discussions is that you’re not just “gay” or “straight,” there’s a spectrum of sexual attractions).
In other words, said hypothetical “gay gene” is actually a female fertility gene that causes men to be more likely to be gay as a side effect, with the increased fertility and subsequently increased number of offspring outweighing any decreases in the number of offspring from any gay men. Remember, though, that whether or not a man is straight or gay has no effect on his ability to reproduce. I have two half-sisters whose father is apparently as full on flaming gay as they come (don’t know myself, I’ve never met him).
It should be pointed out that the term gay gene is likely misleading, since it’s quite likely that sexual orientation is influenced by multiple genes, as so many other traits are.
However, there is the problem that this explanation fails to cover why some women are homosexual, which, I’ve noticed, is often the case- nearly every study I’ve ever seen has focused almost exclusively on men.
I wasn’t suggesting there is a “gay gene”, which is why I put it in scare quotes.
We already know it’s something someone is born with. What we don’t know yet is why some people are born with it.
Why? I’ve never been convinced by this argument. Whether its genetic or not would not change what is in the fundamentalists’ Bibles, and indeed would open the possibility that they then argue it is a disease that should be cured via genetic manipulation.
There are plenty of things that people choose to do with their lives that I don’t agree with, but that doesn’t mean they’re “sinful” or that I have a right to tell them to stop. I don’t see why we should cede ground to the fundies and essentially say “It may be wrong but gays can’t help it”, rather than say “It’s none of your goddamned business what people do in their own bedrooms.”
This is not quite my point. Yes I agree that “It’s none of your goddamned business what people do in their own bedrooms.” However, many gays would like to have the acceptance that being gay is what they are and not what they have chosen to be. I am no expert in the subject but (without, I hope ruffling any feathers) there are certain universal “gay” characteristics which mark people out as being such which suggests strongly that it is not a lifestyle choice. I am quite prepared to re-educated if this is not so. Overriding all this, in a scientific forum, it is of interest to discover the truth simply for it’s own sake.
There’s some evidence that homosexuality is at least somewhat heritable. However, there is not a huge body of it so it could be overturned by the next round of studies.
It’s really an open question what “causes” homosexuality. But the question itself is at least part of the problem. It’s just not true that there are two monolithic groups, “heterosexual” and “homosexual.” Human sexual behavior is incredibly varied both between and within cultures. There is no one right attitude or disposition for a human being to have during sex, but the suggestion that we need to find a “cause” for homosexuality suggests the opposite — that there’s a sexual attitude one SHOULD have and that any other attitude requires an explanation.
I’m really physically attracted to redheads. To my knowledge no one has yet suggested we need to look for an answer why in my genes.
Whether or not its heritable is not the same question as whether it’s something you were born with. All kinds of things can happen in the womb that affect development.
I would think the question of whether gay people are born gay or choose to be gay is settled. The question of what makes them gay is not.
Cynthia Nixon doesn’t think so. More to the point, it’s not clear that a) same-sex attraction results from the same causes in both sexes (i.e., gay males and lesbians just might be different), and b) reductive claims about causes often ignore bisexuals.
Human sexuality is really complex.
[That should be Cynthia Nixon doesn’t think so.]
@truthspeaker:
I understand the difference between heritable and congenital traits. But the scientific evidence I’m talking about is from heritability studies. To my knowledge there’s no evidence that homosexuality is outright congenital.
Note that “not a choice” is not the same thing as “born that way.” There’s lots of other ways things you don’t choose can happen to you besides birth.
You haven’t ruffled my feathers – yet – but I strongly deny that there are any ‘universal “gay” [why the scare-quotes?] characteristics which mark people out as being such’. My husband and I couldn’t be more different, and both of us would “pass”. Two men I went to school with came out decades later to my great surprise. Many people go through their lives successfully conceraling their homosexuality from the world. Of course you notice flaming queens, leathermen, bears etc., but they are only the tip of the iceberg, I assure you. The only thing we all have in common is same-sex attraction. Many conventional married men go on the down-low seeking man-man sex. The woods are full of them.
And as usual, the discussion ignores lesbians.
I don’t think they are meant to be scare quotes – only that using ‘gay’ for a such non monolithic group is biologically flawed, even if not politically. As you say, it covers a huge range of people.
O.K. I will consider myself re-educated. I did later regret putting in that comment, largely because I realize that I do not have any scientific, research based evidence to go on.
Before you worry about the mechanism by which people have same-sex attraction, wouldn’t it be a lot easier to first understand the mechanism by which they have opposite-sex attraction? That’s much more common, so it ought to be easier to study.
(I trust that in this forum I won’t have to swat back anyone who confuses mechanism with “purpose” [function]. We all know what people are heterosexual for. And isn’t it amazing the number of people who must think homosexual attraction is the default condition, since they fear that if anyone is allowed to do it, everyone will want to do it, to the exclusion of heterosexual activity and “the human race will die out”?)
Maybe, but it seems like it’d be much harder to study something that’s so ubiquitous.
I actually think its just as interesting a question, since there are obviously culture informs a lot on what people find attractive. Are there universal standards of human beauty that all humans use? You have to wonder if we’re attracted as much to novelty as we are to any particular trait, so you end up with trends in beauty, and then sudden changes as a trend becomes ubiquitous, and then gets replaced by a newer trend.
But across all cultures and ages most men find women (and not men) sexually desirable and arousing, and most women, men. I gather we have some knowledge of the physiology and chemistry by which that happens, but what gives gendered focus to the object-choice?
And why are men (in general) more attracted to the parts, women more to the whole?
“And why are men (in general) more attracted to the parts, women more to the whole?”
– regardless of orientation. This seems to go with being men or women, not with being heterosexual or homosexual.
What do you mean by “more attracted to the parts” and “more attracted to the whole?”
Also, I’ll point out that what’s considered attractive is highly subjective and varies substantially between cultures, or even across generations within the same culture- just look at the past 50 years worth of Hollywood sex symbols.
I think I’ll have to conduct some in-depth research on that last point…
/@
The difficulty in sexual studies is that you can only really trust that the men who claim to be gay actually are gay. The rest of the men may not be what they claim.
Personally I’m a hippopotamus but I would never admit to it in a survey.
Weasel words aplenty in Lord Carey’s letter – when helping someone who is distressed it should indeed not matter what the helper’s religious back ground is, and I could see that in a society where gays are exposed to homophobia they might well feel distressed. How reasonable of him and his co-signees. But, of course, that’s not what he means at all is it?
It is not only Carey who as others have pointed out, is not one the nice cuddly Anglican, who has been illiberal recently.
John Senatmu, the Archbishop of York and second only to the Archbishop of Canturbury in the Church of England had called David Cameron’s proposal to amend the civil partnership legislation dicatorial. Cameron’s plan is to redefine civil partnership (which is for same sex couples) as marriage. In practice this would not make much difference, since civil partnerships are already the legal equivalent of marriages, but it would allow same sex couple to marry in any venue currently licensed to hold marriages.
Senatmu says his opposition is because it would overturn centuries of tradition. That Governments have long overturned centuries of tradition in the interest of equality escapes him, but given he is black and fled his native Uganda because he was being persecuted you would think he might know that.
That’s ‘Sentamu’. But yes, he’s still an arse.
Yeah it is Sentamu. Bloody spell checker!
“Competent practitioners, including those working with biblical Judeo-Christian values, should be free to assist those seeking help.”
Sure. The key word there is competent. Any practitioner who advocates the patient undergo a major psychological change for a non-problem is almost by definition not competent.
Is there a cure for being Lord Carey?
None that are legal, moral or ethical.
🙂
If homosexuality were a “choice” I would become gay just to piss these bigots. As it happens I feel no attraction to other men. Which is curious since this post comes right after the one on “free” will.
There could be a lot of grey here.
In this case (depending on details), someone comes and convincingly says that their orientation is causing them deep stress, is it wrong for the therapist to explore the options?
“If a black person goes to a GP and says I want skin bleaching treatment, that does not put the onus on the practitioner to deliver the demands of the patient. ”
If a male comes to a doctor and says they want to be surgically altered to female because they feel that is there identity… is really that any different?? (other than the fact that the first example is politically incorrect and the second is not)
Why is it supportive to take a person’s word when they say they are unhappy with the body they were born with but unsupportive to take a person’s word when they are unhappy about their sexuality?
What about a man who seeks therapy because his natural personal tendency toward promiscuity is a threat to his personal life? Should the therapist refuse to help. Should he be told, that’s just the way you are?
NO ONE SHOULD EVER BE COERCED into such treatment. But if a client really wants to work with something they see as an issue…
Well in most countries getting gender realignment surgery is a bit more complex than just presenting to a surgeon and asking for it to be done.
A patient does not have a right to a specific treatment if the doctor does not consider it to be in the patient’s interest. Now obviously that can lead to problems, since it can be argued that it is the patient who knows what is in their best interest but actually this is not always so. Patients can and do come to regret having undergone treatment, and so a doctor must assure herself that the desire on the part of the patient is deep felt. In the case of gender alignment surgery this often requires the patient living as their preferred gender for a period of time, along with a second opinion from a psychologist with experience in the field.
For one thing, a competent clinician would be familiar with the known and documented outcomes of both kinds of therapy.
If a male comes to a doctor and says they want to be surgically altered to female because they feel that is there identity… is really that any different?? (other than the fact that the first example is politically incorrect and the second is not)
Its valid to point out that there’s a social/cultural component to the determination of what is or isn’t “legitimate therapy.” But this is true about everything. The BACP has to make its best judgement to remove dangerous therapists even though this is the case.
I’m not a Brit, I’m a yank, so maybe I’m particularly sensitive to 1st-amendment type issues, but what I found most disturbing about her treatment was that she used “religious” techniques. If your therapist is trying to convert you, that’s almost reason enough to pull their license regardless of what problem you claimed to have when you entered.
A Rabbi Ralbag (a US citizen) is or was chief Rabbi at the Netherlands Israelitic Head Synagoge. In the US, he signed a document called, “Declaration on the Torah Approach to Homosexuality,” which is on the ‘homosexuality can be cured’ line. Nobody would have cared much about this, but that he signed as the Amsterdam rabbi, and the Amsterdam synagoge did not share his point of view.
Ralbag got suspended from Amsterdam.
A council of rabbis said ugly things about the presidium of the Amsterdam synagoge.
Amsterdam sort of indicated they should mind their own business.
Ralbag refused to come to Amsterdam ‘as in the present climate he could not be sure of his life there’. This reads like absolute proof of his paranoia.
To be continued …
From the BHA, not directly related to Carey’s statement, although it is mentioned in the article, but covering the same issues:
/@
Wow this is pretty awful! Homophobia is still so rampant, although the fact that most people will ignore this sort of nonsense is heartening.
Reblogged this on humanathema and commented:
Jerry Coyne defends incompatibilism.
So, I’ll only offer this anecdote against the claim that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle.
A few years ago, I worked with a number of openly gay men. They were hired by me to help with some HIV education outreach programs I was in charge of. Nice guys, committed to the project, easy to work with, no jerks in the bunch.
One day, we were sitting around the office shooting the breeze as co-workers often do. The subject of math came up: I complained that I was not as proficient as I would like to be. And I blamed that lack of proficiency on my falling behind in 8th grade math. The reason I fell behind in 8th grade math was because I sat directly behind a girl I had a crush on — so “missed” the vast majority of the lectures.
One of my colleagues said that exact experience happened to him — except he went to an all-boys’ school.
And that’s when I really got it. It’s not a “lifestyle choice”.
Exactly. Any heterosexual wondering about this should as him/herself when he/she decided to be heterosexual.
While the subject of human sexuality is Gordian, I agree, it is not a lifestyle choice.
By it I mean homosexuality. Clarification.
Actually, human sexuality in general is quite Gordian. And not a lifestyle choice.
Quite right.
“…Rt Rev Wallace Benn, the Bishop of Lewes…”
He looked a bit Bath and Wellsish to me, but you can find out for sure – it’s tattooed on the back of their neck….
But is he the ‘baby-eating Bishop of Bath and Wells’?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGgMZpGYiy8&ob=av2n
Couldn’t help it, sorry.
About curing homosexuality – isn’t curing homophobia and bigotry a much better option?
+1
+10
Liberal Anglican is like liberal Republican
I don’t believe that “Reparative/change” therapy ought to be done to anyone for any reason–and definitely not from someone into a fanatical religion!
Anglicans vary wildly and not just in one dimension. One dimension is ritual (from low church to more Catholic than the Catholic church), another is social issues which probably range from regretting women have the vote to presiding over weddings of people of the same sex, a third is theological from Bible literalists to almost atheists. You can never be sure what combo a given Anglican might be; however, Carey is not a liberal and a fair number of Anglicans probably wonder how to send him off to South Georgia.
And for some people you might as well have a box on the census:
No religion / Anglican.
The problem with liberalism is that its so anti-orthodox and anti-dogmatic that plenty of non-liberals can adopt the label and suddenly they believe they’re authentic liberals, and then they spout their illiberal views and liberalism becomes incoherent.
Liberalism, for me, is consistent, rational and based on authenticity. For example, you can’t be both a liberal and worship a god or goddess. They’re both incompatible. Obama, for example, is not a liberal, because he claims to believe in a God. If he’s a secret atheist then he’s being inauthentic and inconsistent, he’s still not a liberal. If the most powerful man in the world is still inauthentic, then there is no hope for liberalism in popular politics.
It would be impossible for someone who made their atheism overt, to be elected. Living in Australia, with an atheist PM, is evidence of our basic secular outlook. The first thing is to fix the education system, so that the populace really get science and critical thinking.
i posted this on another forum, the news links, etc. i forgot to quote the part where it mentions the guy being an investigative journalist. the response to the quotes/links i posted (no one bothered to click through the links) was a resounding, “what’s the problem? he asked her to help him and she is/did.”
i honestly thought that the fact that she is using her “credentials” on such quackery, and in the name of the lord, at that, would have been enough to repulse people. not so. that legitimately upset me. that those that commented on that forum thought it okay for someone to believe they were “sick” and that this woman could cure them with her christian values.
it’s harder and harder to be an optimist these days.
There won’t be a nirvana, however, a slow movement towards a more educated public. However, I resonated with your ‘harder to be an optimist’. I have moments like that.