Furthermore, I do find the explanation of homosexuality in the article rather interesting. In my experience, boys raised in families like the one described (cruel father, mother identifying with son, etc.) are in fact more likely to be PERCIEVED as gay. That is, they tend to have some of the characteristics people associate with homosexuality, and be percieved as such by classmates and other peers. However, I do not know that they are more likely to actually BE homosexual. It would be interesting to see how early perception and classification as a homosexual by peers affects later sexual orientation. And of course my own experience with people raised in such homes is merely anecdotal in itself...I suppose the great problem with psychoanalytic theory is that it is anecdotal. If a person is a certain way, the psychoanalyst knows this, and must come up with a reason, which as shown in the article can result in the psychoanalyst suggesting one reason, being told it is not the case, and then moving on to another reason. This is one reason why psychoanalysis is out of favor with many: it cannot really be tested. Though it is quite interesting and rings true at times, and I'm sure it can be useful for therapy with some patients, it cannot be empirically demonstrated in most cases.

Yes, that is what I'm saying. Though I myself do not have a strong opinion as to whether homosexuality is a mental disorder (I believe it is a disordered tendency from a moral standpoint, but that does not mean it is necessarily a mental disorder), I do see that the majority of psychologists do not believe it to be a mental disorder. However, Freud most likely would have seen it as such, and thus a strict Freudian, of which there are few, would probably at least theoretically be willing to pursue reparative therapy for it. Basically all I am saying is that Dr. Levy does not seem to me to be asserting that most psychologists agree with his viewpoint, but rather that he himself is a Freudian (I assume he is, otherwise this quote makes little sense) and that his opinions are within the tradition of Freudian thought.
Of course, I don't know whether his statement was meant to decieve anyone, as the article suggests it was. Perhaps he expected his audience to be ignorant of the difference between "psychoanalytic theory" and "psychology". I do not know him nor am I familiar with his work to judge what his intentions are. However, I would say that on the face of it his statement is truthful, though the article in question claims it is not.

Here's a quote from the article posted about by the person who doesn't use a name:
"Homosexuality, Levy asserts, is a mental disorder, a certifiable neurosis. "The psychoanalytic perspective has always considered homosexuality and same-sex attraction to be a neurosis. They still do and they still treat it." (In fact, mental health associations do not consider homosexuality a neurosis and do not "treat" patients for it. Dr. Douglas Haldeman, president of the Association of Practicing Psychologists, a group affiliated with the American Psychological Association, says it is wrong to identify homosexuality as a neurosis. "There is no scientific evidence of that, and there is no mainstream mental health organization or profession that supports this ancient, discredited theory," he says.)"
I simply wanted to correct the assumption of the article that when Dr. Levy says that "The psychoanalytic perspective has always considered homosexuality and same-sex attraction to be a neurosis. They still do and they still treat it" he means that mainstream psychology in general holds this view and treats homosexuality. "The psychoanalytic perspective" does not equal "all psychologists" by any means. Psychoanalysis is a particular theory, based on Freudian thought. When Dr. Levy makes this statement, he is not asserting a false claim that most psychologists see homosexuality as a neurosis, but rather that those who follow Freud's ideas would largely see it that way, and that those (or at least those who he believes truly follow the theory) would wish to treat homosexuality and attempt to repair it.

Anonymous (Michael?), I forgot to say that you're right that you didn't change my mind, but I do appreciate the additional perspective.

Matt,
Since this thread has degenerated, this will be my last post.
Let me be very clear to you. I have no "discomfort" about Catholic teaching. Nor is it "evading" to discuss the medical aspects of a topic.
You clearly have NO CLUE what I was talking about. Whether that's because you are unable or unwilling to understand is unknown to me.
You made the straw man argument that my post "flew in the face of Catholic teaching," was unable to back up your allegation, then proceeded to question my faithfulness to Catholic teaching.
How arrogant of you to think that anyone needs to defend their faithfulness of Church teaching to you.

Michael, I have no reason to believe that the reports about the 1973 APA conference were erroneous but at this point, it's a "he said, she said" so I won't pursue it.
Your repeated insistence that homosexuality was removed as a diagnostic category was because of lack of scientific evidence prompted me to refer to an historical overview of mental health.
At that time, there was little or no empirical evidence for any diagnostic category. Empirical research hit its stride after homosexuality was removed as a diagnostic category.
I have yet to see a credible reason for the removal of homosexuality as a diagnostic category other than political pressure. If you can produce a credible explanation, please do so.
The "broken record" about NARTH is not surprising given that their results are routinely dismissed, for example that results are "only anecdotal."
The crux of the matter is the premise of what normal sexuality is. Normal sexuality has meant male and female. The APA statements for the past 30 years have tried without any scientific basis to change what 'normal' is simply by their say so.

Mary Kay,
I will obviously not change your mind. That you repeat the erroneous claim about homosexual advocates shouting down participants at the 1973 APA meeting shows that you understand very little about how and why homosexuality was removed as a mental disorder, including the scores of clinical data to support it's removal. Yes there was a political aspect, but the opposition was given plenty of opportunity to rebut the current evidence and they chose not to, prefering to portray the incidence as a politically motivated decision rather than based on scientific evidence. There is simply no evidence that homosexuality is, per se, a mental disorder. It might very well be a moral disorder, but it isn't a mental disorder. It might be that you are confusing the two. That isn't to say that homosexuals don't suffer from mental disorders that are related to anxiety over their sexuality. It's just that NARTH believes that homosexuality is intrinsically a mental disorder (I'll stress it again) and there just isn't any evidence for that.
As to the APA categorically opposing reparative therapy as an option, it is unsurprising. First, there is (and I sound like a broken record) absolutely no evidence of it being successful. NARTH is very iffy on reporting their success rates.
Dan R.
Re your response to ajesquire: Of course the NARTH treatment makes sense given their position on the cause and nature of homosexuality. The problem is there is absolutely no evidence supporting their opinion.

Matt, what you missed was that both instances were health related rather than Catechism related.
The first was when you crossed the line to pronounce what was "good for a patient's health."
The second was specifically and solely about therapy. (btw, you still haven't told me what you thought "flies in the face of Catholic teaching)
A health professional sees people of various religious persuasions. If the patient is Catholic, then their reason for being seen can be discussed in terms of Catholic teaching. If the patient is not Catholic, then the health provider can't quote the Catechism to the patient.
Since both instances had a medical focus rather than a Catechism focus, I'm not going to take your litmus test.

To ajesquire:
Dr. Nicolosi's attempts to help a young boy get a grasp of his masculinity through those activities with his father actually make a great deal of sense if seen through the lens of NARTH'S understanding behind the root cause of homosexuality. Male SSA is principally a deep-seated craving and affirmation of one's manhood that never occured in the critical adolescent years. This affirmation is usually (though not always) found through a father, or father-like figure in a young man's life. If a boy does not get the chance to affirm his masculinity, then he spends his teen years questioning it, and if not properly directed, his adult years trying to "absorb" it through multiple partners, encounters, etc. So while banging on pegs or wrestling, or even taking a shower with Dad may seem off-putting at first, those activities need to be seen as attempts to give the child a chance to identity - through the proper male figure - with what being a male means.

Michael,
What part of
"the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as "reparative" or conversion therapy, which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that a patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation "
is misinterpreted?
However, you've apparently added more than what they said. You make it sound as if they oppose reparation therapy as the "only" therapy, as if one of several options. In fact, the APA has categorically opposed it as an option. It was only in August 2006 that the APA president said that re-orientation therapy was an option.
Nor is there any credible scientific evidence is support the APA's statement that the a priori assumption is wrong.
However, there was much political pressure. Prior to removal as a diagnostic category, homosexual activists disrupted an APA meeting, shouting down participants.
In addition, it is indeed relevant to consider APA's political bedfellows. It is not coincidence that both abortion and homosexuality advocates dismiss as anecdotal any events that do not fit their view.
Again, there are no credible studies to support much of what is bandied about as "fact."
Your last paragraph about NARTH is a straw man argument.

Mary Kay,
you did not answer my question as to where in my post you claim that my "position flies in the face of Catholic teaching." You made an allegation. Now you have to back it up.
I'm glad that you're concerned about an individual's soul.
At this point, I simply want to know why you have such a problem with what I said.
Perhaps I misread a between the lines inference, if I'm wrong, I apologize. Would you like to correct me? Just say: "Matt, you are wrong. I believe that homosexual inclinations are objectively disordered and agree with the Church's teaching regarding homosexuality as laid out in CCC 2357-2359."
I will refrain from responding to anonymous cowards ridiculous ideas about not extinguishing temptation where it is possible, I will point out that Ghandi slept with naked teenage girls, supposedly to test his will... that sounds dangerously close to what he is proposing.

Mary Kay,
Again you are misinterpretting. It doesn't matter what kind of bedfellows the APA has politically with regards to homosexuals. The point is that they reject the notion that the only proper therapy for a person with SSA is an attempt to convert them into heterosexuals. The APA finds this a priori assumption wrong. They do not believe that SSA cannot be managed without being outright gay, nor do they believe that sexuality cannot change, nor do they believe that the best treatment for a patient is never an attempt to live as a heterosexual. Again, what they reject is the a priori assumption that the only treatment for a patient with SSA is reparative therapy.
If you go to NARTH, they will not recognize cases in which an attempt to live a life as a heterosexual would be far more psychologically damaging than an attempt to live a life as a chaste homosexual (or SSA person, if you prefer). I am truly sorry if you cannot see the nuanced but extremely important distinction between the two.

Jared, that's why I've stopped responding (or even reading) anonymous posts.

I think the above anonymous coward's Rule 20 violations should be deleted.

Mr. Anonymous Poster (so tired of these people who lack the courage to even post under a psuedonym):
sup‧press–verb (used with object) 1. to put an end to the activities of (a person, body of persons, etc.): to suppress the Communist party.
2. to do away with by or as by authority; abolish; stop (a practice, custom, etc.).
3. to withhold from disclosure or publication (truth, evidence, a book, names, etc.).
4. to stop or arrest (a flow, hemorrhage, cough, etc.).
5. to vanquish or subdue (a revolt, rebellion, etc.); quell; crush.
Sounds exactly like what Christ did. In addition, He taught us to flee temptation, to pray (in the Our Father) for deliverance from it. St. Paul writes:
Now flee from youthful lusts, and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart. (2 Tim. 2:22)
Suppression is, indeed, exactly what is called for.

Same sex attraction does not have to suppressed
Same sex attraction is a temptation. Temptations should be suppressed.
Because there is no valid scientific evidence that such therapies are effective and because there is no valid scientific evidence of any mental disorder to be corrected.
I don't know about the effectiveness of any given therapy, but if it has been established that someone is attracted to a people of the same sex then it has been established that they have a mental (or emotional?) disorder. You don't need science to know that SSA is disordered.

Michael,
I based my comment on the APA's statement
"the APA joined many other professional organizations that either oppose or are critical of "reparative" therapies"
http://www.psych.org/psych_pract/copptherapyaddend...
They joined other organizations that have been actively pro-homosexual and pro-abortion while dismissing any and all that differed from their views.
For the above reasons, because of how highly charged the topic is, for several other reasons, I stand by my statement that the APA is not the last word on homosexuality.

Matt, you did not answer my question as to where in my post you claim that my "position flies in the face of Catholic teaching." You made an allegation. Now you have to back it up.
I'm glad that you're concerned about an individual's soul.
At this point, I simply want to know why you have such a problem with what I said.

Mary Kay,
I think you misinterpret the APA statement. That they disagree with reparative therapy because they disagree with the a priori assumption that some should change their sexual orientation, neither that a) a person can change thier orientation nor b) a person should engage in a homosexual lifestyle. That many therapists believe that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with living a homosexual lifestyle is neither here nor there. The a priori assumption that NARTH operates under is that sexual orientation can and should, emphasis on the should, be changed. Not dealt with. Changed. And that is not an appropriate a priori assumption. Considering that NARTH bases most of its therapy on shame, there is a very good reason that the APA rejects it. And it is disheartening to see someone like Jimmy constantly recommending them. Nicolosi's opinion is based on theories that are very out dated, very unsupported by modern research, and very, very Freudian.

Matt, please specify where your claim that in my post, "your position flies in the face of Catholic teaching."
If you agree with Church teaching on this matter than say - "I agree that homosexual inclinations are objectively disordered and agree with the Church's teaching regarding homosexuality as laid out in CCC 2357-2359."
Simple enough?
I'm speaking as a layman, to laymen
Then why are you making pronouncements about what MUST be done in regard to treatment of patients?
I'm concerned for the salvation of the individual's soul. I only said that if the person can't be healed, they the tendency mus be suppressed. If medical treatment is available to assist with that, great, if not, prayer and good spiritual guidance. Either way it must be suppressed.

If it can't be expunged IT MUST be suppressed for the spiritual and material health of the patient.
"IT MUST be suppressed" does indeed come across as forceful.

It is forcefully stated. Everyone knows the difference between advocating force and stating a position forcefully.

Matt, please specify where your claim that in my post, "your position flies in the face of Catholic teaching."
In your haste to prove others wrong, you not only blur lines, but you miss what the other person is saying.
I really don't care if the words I use are not scientifically accurate according to the psychologists.
Which makes it a darned good thing that you're not a health professional.
I'm speaking as a layman, to laymen
Then why are you making pronouncements about what MUST be done in regard to treatment of patients?
Mike gave you very good advice about not conflating homosexuality and addictions.
If it can't be expunged IT MUST be suppressed for the spiritual and material health of the patient.
"IT MUST be suppressed" does indeed come across as forceful.

Forgot the citation:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which isobjectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Mary Kay,
your position flies in the face of Catholic teaching that homosexuality is an "objective disorder" CCC. Given that, I don't see how it would not be defined as a psychological disorder, the CMA seems to take this position. Now perhaps not all psychological disorders are curable, nor is it necessarily appropriate to attempt to reverse it. It is necessary for the SALVATION of the victim to help them to see the sinful nature of homosexual behaviour, and to help them overcome their problem by either curing it if that is possible and prudent the situation, or suppressing it.
I really don't care if the words I use are not scientifically accurate according to the psychologists. I'm speaking as a layman, to laymen, if anyone has trouble understanding what I mean they can ask.
If anyone thinks that I'm suggesting the use of force, that's patently ridiculous. We do not coerce obedience by physical force in the Catholic Church.

Mike, therapy is very much geared to what the client is asking for.
The clear cut situations are
1) if the family members are the ones upset, but not the IP, then the focus is on the family's distress. If they were Catholic, a referral to an Encourage group would be appropriate.
2)if the IP says he is greatly distressed by SSA and wants heterosexual relationships, then a referral to reparative therapy would be appropriate (doing the same check on credentials, experience and treatment method as any new provider).
Your hypothetical IP feels shame about his SSA and also feels badly about "disappointing" his family. A hypothetical diagnosis for this hypothetical person would be "Sexual Disorder Not Otherwise Specified" to give that person a safe place to talk his SSA, to explore if it is situational or something deeper.
That's the most likely scenario. It's just as likely to have a clinician with an agenda to push a client into a "homosexual lifestyle" as it is to have a clinician push him to "deny his sexual orientation."
Basically your last sentence is expressing a fear that a clinician let their agenda or bias interfere with patient care. But that's not limited to mental health. From my own medical history, I've run into providers who were blinded by their own bias, to the extent of disregard documentation. (I eventually got a second opinion and some answers.)

Hi Matt-
Be very careful about conflating homosexuality and other disorders such as addiction. Even if one believes that homosexuality is a mental disorder (which I do not), not all mental illnesses have the same etiology or treatment.

I want to echo the advice someone gave above, that the older brother here can help by being a loving, close brother. The younger man has so few places to turn, how fortunate he is to have his older brother who will look out for him, be a companion and friend, and a role model. Being a teen, dealing with all the issues of growing up, expectations, romance! and measuring up, are all frightening enough; having to deal with same-sex attractions can only make it more frightening.
One problem is that these young men and women don't know where to turn, to whom to confide. Sadly, the "liberation" folks are ready.
So this older brother can really help just by being a brother.

Hi Mary Kay-
I was thinking along the following lines:
A person confides in their family that they feel atraction towards the same sex. Said family members are very distressed, and insist that he/she seek reparative therapy to "cure" them of their homosexuality. That person, out of love for their family, seeks said therapy.
Now, for that person, their homosexual attractions may be transient, or they may represent something more fundamental about their sexuality. A therapist who is convinced that homosexuality is a mental illness may try to coerce that person into an unhealthy denial of their sexuality, perhaps to the point of that person trying to undertake a heterosexual relationship that they are not suited to. I'm not saying that all therapists would do this, I hope that there are those who recognize that homosexual attractions are not the same for everybody. So, in the preceeding case, no one put a gun to that person's head and "forced" then into reparative therapy, but that person, out of shame of their sexual orientation and the desire to please their family, tries to push themselves into an unhealthy situation. I'm not saying everyone seeking therapy for their homosexual attractions is in this situation, but it is what I fear could be a possibility.

Mike,
I may not be a psychiatrist, but I play one on TV (kidding!) ... Hmmm, I wondered who that was in the background on Grey's Anatomy. (teasing back - I've never seen it)
Okay, now I get that you're sayinig that reparative therapy is right by default. All I was saying was that it shouldn't be automatically ruled out.
Which brings us to the new therapy point. It's a topic almost too large to tackle in a combox and I'm reluctant to delve too deeply. I'll just leave it that I would not rule it out as an option.
You are certainly not alone with your difficulty of SSA as a mental illness de facto, but then, if you're familiar with the DSM, that's not news.
(DRUM ROLL) Now to your last paragraph and why I commented about the forceful imposition. WHO is "subjecting an individual to therapy to end their homosexuality?" If you're suggesting a therapist would, under what circumstances? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm curious.
btw, it's the treatment that's not forced, not the diagnosis.

Hi Mary Kay-
I may not be a psychiatrist, but I play one on TV (kidding!). However, I do know a few things about the medical literature and how to evaluate it. I'm not sure I was clear in my earlier post- my point was that although the APA's statements on homosexuality may be flawed, that does not mean that reparative therapy is right by default. Any form of medical treatment must be judged as to its safety and efficacy on its own merits.
I don't think I was making a broad generalization about therapy in general, just an observation that there is not a great deal of evidence supporting reparative therapy in particular. I would be equally as hesitiant about recommending a new therapy in my own field that was not well supported by available evidence. If such evidence emerges, and the consensus among objective professionals is that reparative therapy is safe and potentially beneficial, I would certainly reverse my previous statements :-)
Both of you seem to have the notion of forcefully imposing something unwanted on a person. Matt with "IT MUST be suppressed" and Mike's blanket statement about being "ultimately damaging."
Any ethical therapist would not seek to force a diagnosis onto someone, it's true. It may well be the case, in some individuals, that reparative therapy may not necessarily be damaging. I do however have a problem with regarding SSA as a mental illness de facto, something that is harmful in and of itself and must be treated. In some individuals, SSA may be something transient or superficial, but in others it seems to be an integral part of who that person is. I submit that subjecting the latter individual to therapy that seeks to end their homosexuality, rather than encouraging them to accept who they are and live a chaste life, could be potentially harmful.

Mike and Matt, your statements demonstrate some misconceptions about therapy. Not uncommon, but also not accurate.
Both of you seem to have the notion of forcefully imposing something unwanted on a person. Matt with "IT MUST be suppressed" and Mike's blanket statement about being "ultimately damaging."
Therapy is voluntary. The one exception is mandated clients, for whom one goal is to not harm others (if I can make a sweeping generalization).
So... Matt, if by "suppressed," you mean "not act on," that is a therapeutic goal. You should also be awared that the word suppression has a very specific meaning in mental health, one that is different than "not act on."
Mike, since you're not a psychiatrist, you may want to reconsider making broad statements about whether a specific therapy is "a valid form of treatment in and of itself."
Fairly recently you could have made the same statement about not finding controlled evaluations of the efficacy about EMDR, a treatment that now is mentioned in Medline.
Not only could you say that about any new therapy, the number of "controlled evaluations of efficacy" for many mental health conditions are sparse. The dust has settled about "best treatment" for very few conditions.

to look at SSA as something that needs to be expunged, and have that be the focus on the therapy may be ultimately damaging to the person in question.
We could say the same thing about attempts to rid someone of many other disorders. Drug addictions in particular.
It is a disorder. If it can be expunged it should be for the spiritual and material health of the patient. If it can't be expunged IT MUST be suppressed for the spiritual and material health of the patient.

The APA policy statements, like those of many other medical organizations, may well be influenced by the values and political tendencies of those making the statements. However, even if that is the case here, that does not make reparative therapy a valid form of treatment in and of itself.
I am not a psychiatrist, but a search of Medline yields almost no controlled evaluations of its efficacy. Some one who experiencing distress due to SSA may very well benefit from therapy, but to look at SSA as something that needs to be expunged, and have that be the focus on the therapy may be ultimately damaging to the person in question.

The founder of NARTH, Nicolosi, recommends "repairing" a potentially gay young boy by having the father play "rough-and-tumble" games, pounding a wooden peg into a hole (is there something subliminal there?!?) and TAKING A SHOWER WITH DAD.
He feels it's important to teach very young boys to "own their p*nises". "if he does not suceed in 'owning' his own [ . . . ], he will grow into an adult who will find continuing fascination in the [ . . . es] of other men."
Riiiight.
Please stick with Courage, and avoid this destructive junk science.

Anon: Do not forget that the APA treated SSA as a disorder until 1973 (a year that lives in infamy for a number of reasons). Was there any ground-breaking research conclusion at that time? Nope. The culture had changed but not the science.
Also, more recently, Pres. Koocher of the APA has voiced support for therapy to limit SSA and strengthen heterosexual potential. http://narth.com/docs/koocher.html
I'm tired of anonymous posting. My advice to you would be to at least post under a psuedonym. Not that there's any scientific data to back me on it; just the "tree" of my annoyance.

The APA is also where the US Bishops got the idea that child molesters and homosexual predators could be reformed.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but as a matter of POLICY it was a totally wacked-out idea.

A Simple Sinner: anonymity and guts rarely go together, so don't hold your breath.
P.S.: You have my respect, because you do have guts.

I had a hunch this post was going to bring out a lot of Rule 20 violations. Jimmy'll have something to do this morning.

There is a rule 20 violation.
I am not going to justify or explain my comments in light of the rules Jimmy has set forth. If anyone who has the guts to post his or her identity publicly has the integrity to e-mail me privately, I would be happy do discuss the evidence for my position.

Anon, the health field likes to discredit what they don't agree with by saying that "it's only anecdotal."
They said the same about post-abortion syndrome.
The scientific study battles are still ongoing. None of them are the definitive answer.
With that, I'll have to continue this during the day.

A Simple Sinner, you show much wisdom in your post.
Anon, that APA position statement says out right that it joins those who "either oppose or are critical of 'reparative' therapies" because they disagree with the "a priori assumption that a patient should change his/her sexual orientation."
The APA's position is not based on rigorous science either. It's a political decision based on "social acceptance."
They've joined with the same organizations that call abortion "health care."
Bottom line, the APA's position statement is not the last word on the topic of homosexuality.

This is an issue that cuts close to home. It is a temptation that I spent a few years indulging in. I like to be open about it in certain adult environments like this one because I am so very glad I have had the Grace to understand how Jesus Christ loved **ME** in particular so very much that He offers me His Church to help me lead my day to day life.
I am nothing special except that He made me and anything He made must be special. But I don't mind to share some of my story if it is the case that other people come to understand the Church was RIGHT when it wrote the old Baltimore Catechism: Who made you? God made me. Why did God make you? To know Him, love Him, and serve Him in this live and be happy with Him for all eternity in the next." That was spot on. 110%. Totaly true.
I also understand that while the Catholic Church, being the Bride of Christ, is totally in love with His children - all of us, she must tell the truth.
Leading a "gay life" in a supportive setting like the city I live in, the neighborhood I lived in, the work environment I was in should have made me very happy. Really, everyone was acccepting of my lifestyle, but I was not happy.
The events that lead back to my return to the Cathololic Church are a long story. I would be happy to share them in another forum. But I can tell everyone that the thing that has helped me the most to lead a Catholic life and understand my place as a celibate single man has been the aid of a good confessor with whom I can be open and honest. Their is simply NO substitute for a good spiritual father to remeber you daily at the altar and pray for you as his son.
In every cross there can be some joy. I can't say I am happy to have the past I have, or that I enjoy dealing with my temptations. I do not. BUT, like a man who has hungered and thirsted for days, I am sometimes more appreciative then I could ever imagine for the spiritual food and water Jesus gives me in the Catholic Church.
I totally agree with Jimmy. He is very right about the use of therapy in dealing with these issues. A good therapist can help us to understand why it is those of us with such temptation struggle the ways we do and help us to move on.
My advice to this man's brother (for what he himself can do) is that this man let his brother know how very much he loves him. Then pray together for the strength and grace to deal with their temptations.
I also would say that what I would tell ANY Catholic who stuggles with ANY temptation (i.e. all of us) find a good spiritual father to really help him lead a holy life. Mine is like a second father to me - helping me gorw, admonishing and encouraging me as I need it.

Anon: If there is insufficient research in this area, perhaps they should study those anecdotal cases in greater detail. In the end, all statistical data can be broken down into individual, anedotal cases.
Sometimes, doing nothing, or worse, reinforcing destructive behavior, is the very opposite of the medical dictum.

"I want to help him by talking to a priest about it " from the original post
I would NOT talk to most priests about it as the American priesthood (at least, it may be international but what I am familiar with) is crawling with homosexuals. My Jesuit High School was unbelievable. This is not meant to be offensive, mean spirited or scandolous. SSA would not only be considered normal but good and encouraged at my ostensibly Catholic High School. The Catholic Jesuit College that I visited friends and my sister went to related to my High School went even farther that those who taught, believed, or at least open their mouths about Traditional Catholic (or Protestant Christian, Eastern Orthodox, Jewish, Islamic, or even Tibetan Buddhist) views on homosexuality were violating hate codes and were evil medeival neandrathals that should be punished and even ostracized from college life.
In Baltimore, gay bars had a priest night because so many Catholic clergy frequented the gay bars.
So, I stand by my, albeit painful, statement that don't talk to a priest about SSA unless you really know the priest well.

Another resource which may be helpful:
http://www.catholictherapists.com/

Marco -
"There are many of us out here who accept our homosexuality – that’s how God made me; it’s like the blood in my veins, the air in my lungs. I am no less a child of God just because I’m gay."
Ummm... so if "God made me" sexually attracted to children???
"Please don’t present SSA only in a negative light..."
You mean, like saying that it is intrinsically disordered, as the Church teaches?
"If this is his true orientation and he isn’t also given positive ways to see himself and means to deal honesty and confidently with his sexuality..."
The way to deal with his sexuality is to live a chaste life. For a single person, that means total abstinence. For a married person, total fidelity. Really married, I mean, to someone of the opposite sex.

But my own personal observation is that those who live the lifestyle are far more self-destructive engaging in soulless one-night stands with complete strangers and courting all manner of STDs, using drugs, and expressing suicidal tendencies.
Unfortunatel, that sounds like many people, regardless of sexual orientation.

I have heard of a parent who did not want to teach her SSA son Catholic theology because she was afraid it would come off as too critical and cause him to commit suicide.
But my own personal observation is that those who live the lifestyle are far more self-destructive engaging in soulless one-night stands with complete strangers and courting all manner of STDs, using drugs, and expressing suicidal tendencies.
Does anyone have some statistics regarding the suicide rate among Courage members and those who engage in an active homosexual lifestyle?

May I ask that we all include the two young men who are the subjects of Jimmy's post & all folks who might have a SSA in our prayers, please? I think that's a very good idea!

J.R., scroll down on the left side of the screen. Under Permaposts is a link to "Da Rulz."

ajesquire committed the violation, and it's been deleted, JRS; you didn't miss anything.