Hilary White

,

UK bill proposes to ban therapy for unwanted same-sex attractions, condemned as ‘Stalinist’

Hilary White
Hilary White

LONDON, December 17, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – While a British Labour Party MP proposes a private member’s bill to ban therapists offering help to overcome unwanted feelings of same-sex attraction, one prominent Christian therapist has warned that the bill is just part of ongoing violations of the rights of clients seeking help.

Dr. Michael Davidson says the bill is part of a “Stalinist” style effort to force out any professional opinions that dissent from the “gay political and social ideology” that is being adopted by psychological associations.

Professional governing bodies, starting with the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Dr. Davidson told LifeSiteNews.com in an interview today, are guided on these issues by a political ideology, not science, and are manipulating and misrepresenting empirical findings.

“The agenda is being driven not by politicians but by the professional bodies,” he said, who are employing what he called “Stalinist tactics” to quash dissent.

“You simply get rid of anybody with a different point of view. Then you can give the impression that there is unity in the literature, and you can gain control,” he said. “It is a Stalinist tactic in this country.”

“You claim an ethical context that refuses to allow any dissenting voice, then you close opportunities to train therapists. This ensures you will have no dissenting voice to the ideological drive,” Dr. Davidson said.

Geraint Davies, Labour MP for Swansea West, has brought forward the bill that he says is intended to “regulate the therapy profession,” and “ban gay-to-straight conversion therapy.” It would require all therapists and counsellors to be registered with the Health and Care Professions Council, which would in its turn be automatically required to strike off anyone offering “gay to straight conversion therapy.”

“This damaging so-called treatment has traumatised many LGBT people over the years and it’s time Britain led the way in banning the therapy outright,” Davies told the House of Commons. “The government has so far refused to act, but since I first proposed my bill I’ve seen MPs from all parties join the psychotherapy profession in condemning this discredited practice.”

“The only way to stop conversion therapy for good is to make regulation compulsory and to strike off anyone attempting to ‘cure’ a person’s sexual orientation.”

“We agree that regulation is always important and must be accountable. It’s a normal part of professional development,” said Davidson, Director of Core Issues Trust and himself a former homosexual. But what is being proposed is not regulation but outright prohibition.

If the bill is passed, he said, it will have “the opposite of the desired effect” on public accountability of therapists. Instead it will drive those seeking help into the hands of untrained and possibly unscrupulous unprofessional practitioners.

The characterization of the therapy as “gay to straight conversion” is also inaccurate. What is offered, he said, by reputable and trained therapists, is not the “gay cure” spoken of by the BBC and MPs, but “therapeutic support” for those who suffer from unwanted same-sex attraction and feelings that lead to unwanted behaviour.

The media, he said, has colluded with the homosexualist political lobby to muddy the waters, introducing terms and ideas that no one in the profession uses. “There is very little understanding about this because the media in the UK has used the term ‘gay to straight conversion therapy,’ but this is really just a pejorative term. It wrongly assumes that what we offer is a ‘quick fix’ over a few therapy sessions on the couch.”

“The fact is these initiatives will continue,” he said, “because there is a demand out there. We’re not trying to close down anyone else’s rights [to live the homosexual lifestyle]; we’re simply trying to provide those with unwanted same-sex attraction with help and support.”

But the professional bodies have created a catch-22 in which they increasingly insist that even to desire to be helped in that way is a sign of a mental pathology. Despite a general movement in the psychological professions towards a “patient-centred” model, in which clients are encouraged to pursue their personal aspirations and goals for therapy, the one goal that is not tolerated is the desire to leave homosexual feelings and temptations behind. 

Dr. Davidson said that the trend is towards forcing such persons to accept homosexuality as “natural and normal,” whether they want to or not. Asked why persons wanting to receive the therapy have not come forward with complaints, he said it is difficult to underestimate the social pressure to conform. “Certainly in the UK if you raise your head above the parapet and speak about these issues, you attract an enormous amount of negative attention,” he said.

Davidson said that the therapeutic professional bodies are following a method similar to that of the medical establishment in the 1960s who re-wrote the scientific literature to redefine pregnancy as the moment of implantation of an embryo, in order to justify first abortifacient contraceptives and later direct surgical abortion.

“The scientific literature is clear,” he said, “that some people can reduce these feelings and live in celibacy if that is their choice. For others it is possible to eliminate the feelings. We think that is a reasonable choice and we are concerned that in the UK the assumption is that such practices are intrinsically harmful.”

But that is precisely the scientific literature that is being deliberately suppressed, he said. “We have argued strongly providing information based on the empirical findings to MPs and Peers,” but, he said, politicians are being mislead by activists within the psychological professional associations. “They have all been shown a single paper” he said, that claimed that “in some instances people have been harmed by this.”

That single study was found to have “serious methodological flaws,” but is still being used by the entire profession to block the available evidence, he said. “They simply say,” to clients seeking to change, “‘You’re wrong to want that. The reason why you want it is because of internalised and systemic homophobia in society, people have bent your mind.’”

“They argue that it is the equivalent of a psychotherapist wanting to help a person with black skin who wants to be white. We hear all the time the unsupported view that homosexuality is genetic, and that since it’s genetic it is completely natural and ought to be supported.”

This amounts, Dr. Davidson said, to telling clients with same-sex attraction that they have no option but to accept the self-identification of “gay” which he called a purely “socio-political idea.”

In contrast, Core Issues Trust and other therapists offering similar assistance, feels “that the right to self-identify is to be protected.” There is a growing awareness “among some people that basic human rights” of clients to seek help with their aspirations “are being trampled.”

With the ideological acceptance by the Royal College of Psychiatrists and other bodies of the premise that homosexuality is merely a normal human “sexual variant,” however, all other professional bodies are following suit like “a series of dominoes,” Dr. Davidson said, and therapists who want to offer clients the choice are being more and more aggressively marginalised.

The UK Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP) claims that there is “overwhelming evidence [of] considerable emotional and psychological cost” associated with change therapies. Its former chair, Professor Andrew Samuels, however, declined to respond to Core Issues’ request for the scientific evidence. Instead, the Council’s Chief Executive, David Pink, simply stated that the question was “adequately addressed in the drawing up of our guidance.”

Core Issues Trust has repeatedly asked for documentation from the Royal College and other bodies to support the claim either that homosexuality is innate or inherited, or that therapy to change is harmful. But nobody has yet to come forward with research findings, referring instead to the statement on the Royal College website asserting that homosexuality is not to be tampered with.

Dr. Di Hodgson, head of UKCP’s Diversity, Equalities and Social Responsibility Committee has said on a BBC Radio 4 programme, “I think there is very conflicting evidence ... So we have taken a view in a way which is regardless of the scientific findings.

“We still believe that it is unethical to seek to agree or to work towards changing someone’s sexual orientation through psychotherapy.”

A statement from Core Issues Trust called the Royal College on their assertions, and by extension the bodies following them, saying they have “failed to respond to reasonable requests to provide the evidence which they claim shows that homosexuality is ‘biological,’ a foundational premise, unsupported by scientific research, which other professional bodies cite without question.”

Dr. Davidson himself was expelled last month from a training programme overseen by the British Psychyodrama Association. “I expressed the view that autonomous individuals, where possible should be allowed to reduce or eliminate their feelings, and should have therapeutic support to do this. That’s my crime.”

Support hard-hitting pro-life and pro-family journalism.

Donate to LifeSite's fall campaign today


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
John-Henry Westen John-Henry Westen Follow John-Henry

, ,

Are you praying for the upcoming Synod on the Family? You should be, and here’s why

John-Henry Westen John-Henry Westen Follow John-Henry
By John-Henry Westen

Catholics, and all Christians who value family values, should be praying earnestly for the Catholic Church as a struggle over critical family issues is coming to a head in the run-up to the Extraordinary Synod on the Family, which takes place October 5-19. 

Augmenting the concerns is the fact that some of the cardinals closest to Pope Francis himself are increasingly in public disagreement over crucial matters related to faith and family. For some, the concerns reach right to the pope himself.

While Synod preparations have been going on for a year, Sunday’s weddings of 20 couples in St. Peter’s Basilica by Pope Francis presented a figurative, and perhaps foreboding launch.

In a press release prior to the ceremony, the Rome diocese inexplicably went out of its way to highlight the fact that some of couples the pope was going to marry were cohabiting. "Those who will get married Sunday are couples like many others,” it said. “There are those who are already cohabitating; who already have children.”

Unsurprisingly, the mainstream press took the bait and seized upon this statement to run headline after headline pushing the confusing notion that the event was a prelude to, or evidence of, a change in Church teaching on marriage.

Headlines like: 

All I can do is pray that the public fallout from these wedding ceremonies does not foreshadow the public outcome of the Synod. If so, we could be headed for a tragedy akin to the tragedy of the late sixties when, despite the proclamation of the truth of Humanae Vitae against contraception, the effect among ordinary Catholics was a near universal rejection of the teaching in practice.

What to expect at the Synod

The official list of those taking part in the Synod includes 114 presidents of Bishops’ Conferences, 13 heads of Eastern Catholic Churches sui iuris, 25 heads of the dicasteries of the Roman Curia, nine members of the Ordinary Council for the Secretariat, the Secretary General, the Undersecretary, three religious elected by the Union of Superiors General, 26 members appointed by the Pontiff, eight fraternal delegates, and 38 auditors, among whom are 13 married couples and 16 experts.

You’ve undoubtedly heard of Cardinal Kasper’s intervention at the Consistory of Cardinals earlier this year, in which he laid out a contentious proposal to allow Catholics who have been divorced and then ‘remarried’ outside the Church to receive Communion. 

Since then a bevy of heavy-hitter cardinals have fought that proposal, including:

Today, however, Cardinal Kasper said the “attacks” from these cardinals were not so much directed at him but at Pope Francis, since, claims Kasper, he discussed his intervention with the pope and gained his approval.

The claim has some basis, since the day after Kasper made the proposal, before it was made public, Pope Francis praised it publicly.  According to Vatican Information Service, the Holy Father said:

I read and reread Cardinal Walter Kasper's document and I would like to thank him, as I found it to be a work of profound theology, and also a serene theological reflection. It is pleasant to read serene theology. And I also found what St. Ignacius described as the 'sensus Ecclesiae', love for the Mother Church. ... It did me good, and an idea came to mind – please excuse me, Eminence, if I embarrass you – but my idea was that this is what we call ‘doing theology on one's knees’. Thank you, thank you.

Of note, Vatican correspondent Sébastien Maillard, writing for France’s La Croix, reports today that Pope Francis is “irritated” by the release of a book containing criticisms of the Kasper proposal by five cardinals.

As LifeSiteNews.com reported yesterday, one of those authors, Cardinal Raymond Burke, is being demoted from his headship of the Apostolic Signatura. The only post planned for the 66-year-old cardinal thus far is patron of the Order of Malta. 

Cardinal Burke’s pre-Synod interventions go beyond the divorce and remarriage question and into the matter of homosexuality.  In a recent interview Cardinal Burke gave a clear refutation of the misuse of Pope Francis’ famed ‘Who am I to judge’ quote to justify homosexuality.

While the issue of the Church’s teachings on homosexuality is seldom raised in reference to the Synod, with most of the emphasis being placed on the question of divorce and remarriage, it is mentioned in the working document, or ‘Instrumentum Laboris’, of the Synod.

As with the matter of divorce, no doctrine regarding homosexuality can be changed, but much confusion can still be sown under the auspices of adjustments to “pastoral” practice. Without a clear teaching from the Synod, the effects could be similar to the shift in “pastoral” practice among dissenting clergy after the promulgation of Humanae Vitae, which led to the use of artificial contraception by most Catholics.

Already and for many years there has been de facto broad acceptance of homosexual sexual practices in many Catholic schools, universities and many other institutions, with many staff being active homosexuals in open defiance of Catholic moral teaching.

Regarding the Synod’s deliberations on homosexuality, it does not bode well that one of Pope Francis’ personal appointees to the Synod is retired Cardinal Godfried Danneels.  The selection is remarkable because of Danneels was caught on tape in 2010 urging a victim who had been sexually abused by a bishop-friend of Danneels, to be silent.  Then, only last year Danneels praised as a “positive development” that states were opening up civil marriage to homosexuals.

Then, just this week, as reported on the Rorate Caeli blog, one of the three Synod presidents gave an interview with the leading Brazilian newspaper in which he said that while stable unions between homosexual persons cannot be equated to marriage, the Church has always tried to show respect for such unions.

The statement matches that of another prominent Synod participant, Vienna’s Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, who in 2010 spoke of giving more consideration to ‘the quality’ of homosexual relationships. “We should give more consideration to the quality of homosexual relationships. A stable relationship is certainly better than if someone chooses to be promiscuous,” Schönborn said.

In the end, while there is currently a public battle in the Vatican that is unprecedented in modern history, the faith will not and cannot change.  As faithful Catholics, and Christians, we must cling to the Truths of Christ regarding the family and live them out in our own lives first and foremost.  That is difficult, to be sure, especially in our sex-saturated culture, but with Christ (and only with Him) all things are possible. 

Plead with heaven for the pope and the bishops in the Synod.  LifeSiteNews will be there reporting from Rome, and, with your prayers and support, be of service to those defending truth.

Share this article

Advertisement
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

Poet: I ‘would’ve died’ for my aborted daughter’s ‘right to choose,’ just ‘like she died for mine’ (VIDEO)

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

What kind of mother asks her baby to die for her? And what kind of media outlet celebrates that?

To take the second question first, The Huffington Post is promoting a video featuring Scottish “poet” Leyla Josephine, celebrating her decision to abort her daughter. The video, “I Think She Was a She,” was uploaded to YouTube a month ago.

In the video Josephine, decked out in military camouflage, justifies herself in part by saying that she would have been willing to serve as a sacrifice to abortion just as she offered her daughter to the idol of “choice.”

“I would’ve supported her right to choose – to choose a life for herself, a path for herself. I would’ve died for that right like she died for mine,” she said.

In the next rhyming line, she addresses her unborn daughter: “I’m sorry, but you came at the wrong time.”

“I am not ashamed. I am not ashamed. I am not ashamed," she continues – a phrase she repeats a total of six times. She repeats the phrase "This is my body" three times. (She also takes the Lord's name in vain once.)

In the early part of the video, she describes her belief that her child was a girl and imagines a life where she had given birth to her daughter.

“I know she was a she,” she says. “I would have made sure that there was space on the walls to measure her height,” she adds. “I would have made sure I was a good mother.”

At one point she appears to describe the emotional aftermath of her choice as “a hollowness that feels full, a numbness that feels heavy.”

But she later calls the idea that her child was a girl or a boy “bull---t” and affirms, yet again, she is not ashamed.

This provokes a few observations:

1. If she knew her child's sex, she must have had a late-term abortion. Our gentle, healing restoration is needed in a world marred by so much aggression and anger in the name of political orthodoxy.

2. Fr. Frank Pavone has written, ”Did you ever realize that the same four words that were used by the Lord Jesus to save the world are also used by abortion advocates? 'This is My Body.'” To paraphrase him, he notes the difference. One, by surrendering His life on the Cross, gave life to the world. The abortion industry uses this phrase to impose its will on the bodies of separate, living human beings who have not harmed anyone.

3. The most chilling phrase in the video is her statement, “I would’ve supported her right to choose...I would’ve died for that right like she died for mine.”

First of all, her daughter did not die for the “right to choose.” Her daughter was not sacrificed for the inalienable “good” of keeping abortion-on-demand legal (and, in the UK, taxpayer-subsidized). Politicians are bribed to maintain it; no baby needs to die for it. Josephine's child died because HuffPo's hero of the moment chose not to carry the baby to term and place him/her in the hands of loving adoptive parents who would have cherished her baby – whether it was actually male, female, or intersex.

Josephine describes the emotions that actually led to the abortion only metaphorically – e.g., she compares the abortion to chopping down a cherry tree – but that angst is the root (so to speak) of the abortion, not the great and grand cause of assuring that other women have the right to go through the same soul-crushing grief.

That intimation that her daughter died for “choice” – that she offered her baby as a living sacrifice on the altar of abortion – confirms the darkest rhetoric of the pro-life movement: That for some in the movement, abortion is sometimes regarded as an idol.

And that raises one other, more universally held question: What kind of parent asks his son or daughter to die for the “right” to abortion? Parents are supposed to be the one who sacrificially care for their children, who forsake their own comfort, who do whatever is necessary – even die – to keep their children safe, healthy, and well. Josephine's blithe, “Sorry, but you came at the wrong time” sounds as hollow as a gangland assassin's apology to the family caught in the crossfire of a drive-by shooting. Abortion severs the love that God, or Mother Nature, or evolution, or whatever you choose to believe in placed within every pregnant woman to link the mother to her child.

The abortion lobby's rhetoric, which increasingly disregards the value of unborn life, is untethered by the bonds of human compassion, is fundamentally selfish and cold-blooded, and lacks a sense of humanity and brotherhood to the point of obliterating maternal love itself.

“Will a woman forget her child, so as not to have compassion upon the offspring of her womb?” God asks through the prophet Isaiah. “But if a woman should even forget these, yet I will not forget thee, saith the Lord.”

The pro-life movement exists precisely to set this upside-down order aright, to reinstate the natural love and compassion everyone should have for all of God's creation – most especially that between a mother and the innocent child she has helped create and fashion with her own DNA.

Cross-posted at TheRightsWriter.com.

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Cardinal Dolan greets worshipers and guests on the steps of Saint Patrick's Cathedral in Manhattan after Easter mass on April 8, 2012 in New York City. Lev Radin / Shutterstock.com
Lisa Bourne

,

Catholic leaders criticize Cardinal Dolan’s defense of gay group at St. Patrick’s Parade

Lisa Bourne
By Lisa Bourne
Image
New York Cardinal John O'Connor on the cover of the New York Post on January 11, 1993. http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/

New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan defended his decision to serve as grand marshal for the 2015 St. Patrick’s Day Parade on Wednesday, in the wake of widespread criticism from Catholics after he praised the organizing committee for allowing a homosexual activist group to march.

“If the Parade Committee allowed a group to publicize its advocacy of any actions contrary to Church teaching, I’d object,” Dolan stated in his weekly column. On the contrary, he argued, “The committee’s decision allows a group to publicize its identity, not promote actions contrary to the values of the Church that are such an essential part of Irish culture.”

Austin Ruse, president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, was not impressed with the cardinal’s argument. This is precisely about publicizing advocacy contrary to Catholic teaching,” he said.

“As a Catholic father I find there is rapidly contracting space where this shameful agenda is not stuck in the faces of my children,” Ruse told LifeSiteNews. “The Church should be protecting our children rather than abetting those who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of innocent souls."

Pat Archbold, a popular blogger at the National Catholic Register and who runs the Creative Minority Report blog, lambasted Dolan for suggesting the embrace and promotion of “gay identity” can be separated from the sin of homosexuality.

“This identity is not a morally-neutral God-given attribute such as male or female, black or white,” he said. “The identity is with the immoral choice to engage in immoral behavior.”

“The best that can be said in this situation is that these people choose to proudly identify themselves with an intrinsic disorder.  But in reality, it is worse than that,” he continued. “The people find their identity and pride in sin.  Either the Cardinal knows this or he doesn't, either way Cardinal Dolan reveals himself unequal to his responsibility as a successor of the Apostles.”

The parade committee changed its longstanding policy on September 3 after decades of pressure from homosexual groups. Upon being announced as the parade’s grand marshal later the same day, Cardinal Dolan said he had no trouble with the decision at all, calling it “wise.”

The organizers had never prohibited any marchers, but did not ban issue-focused banners and signs, whether promoting homosexuality or the pro-life cause.

Cardinal Dolan stated in his column Wednesday that he did not oppose the previous policy.

“This was simply a reasonable policy about banners and public identification, not about the sexual inclinations of participants,” he explained.

“I have been assured that the new group marching is not promoting an agenda contrary to Church teaching,” he said as well, “but simply identifying themselves as ‘Gay people of Irish ancestry.’”

The homosexual activist group that will march is called OUT@NBCUniversal, which describes itself as the employee resource group for LGBT & Straight Ally employees at the media giant.

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

The network held the broadcast contract for parade coverage. Reports indicated the contract was about to expire, and that NBC joined in pressuring on parade officials.

Cardinal Dolan conceded in his column there were many thoughtful reasons for criticizing the parade policy change, and noted that he shared some of them.

“While a handful have been less than charitable in their reactions, I must admit that many of you have rather thoughtful reasons for criticizing the committee’s decision,” he said. “You observe that the former policy was fair; you worry that this is but another example of a capitulation to an ‘aggressive Gay agenda,’ which still will not appease their demands; and you wonder if this could make people think the Church no longer has a clear teaching on the nature of human sexuality.” 

However, he said, the most important question he had to ask himself was whether the new policy violated Catholic faith or morals.

In stressing that homosexual actions are sinful while identity is not, Cardinal Dolan said, “Catholic teaching is clear: ‘being Gay’ is not a sin, nor contrary to God’s revealed morals.”

Making opinion paramount, the cardinal offered that the parade committee “tried to be admirably sensitive to Church teaching,” and even though the original policy was not at all unfair, the committee was “realistic in worrying that the public perception was the opposite, no matter how often they tried to explain its coherence and fairness.”

“They worried that the former policy was being interpreted as bias, exclusion, and discrimination against a group in our city,” Cardinal Dolan wrote. “Which, if true, would also be contrary to Church teaching.”

When the decision was announced and Cardinal Dolan named the parade’s grand marshal, Philip Lawler, director of Catholic Culture and editor for Catholic World News, called it a significant advance for homosexual activists, and a significant retreat for the Catholic Church.

Pointing out in his column that the media will be correct to concentrate on that narrative at next March’s event, Lawler identified what he said is almost certain to be the result of the 2015 St. Patrick’s Day Parade.

“Next year there will be only one story-line of interest to the reporters who cover the annual parade in the world’s media capital: the triumph of the gay activists,” Lawler wrote.

“Photographers will be competing for the one ‘money’ shot: the picture of the contingent from OUT@NBCUniversal marching past the reviewing stand at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, under the benign smile of Cardinal Timothy Dolan.”

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook