LifeSiteNews.com

Grove City College Psychologist Warren Throckmorton Blasted for Backpedaling on Homosexuality

LifeSiteNews.com
LifeSiteNews.com

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

GROVE CITY, PENNSYLVANIA, March 19, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A psychologist teaching at the conservative-Evangelical Grove City College has been making waves by endorsing same-sex civil union legislation, and claiming that homosexuals can live "normal, natural and healthy" lives.

In a recent interview with the Evangelical news service OneNewsNow (ONN), Dr. Warren Throckmorton reportedly said that "he opposes same-sex marriage but believes the Equal Protection Clause permits homosexual civil unions," according to the news agency.

"Throckmorton says he personally holds a 'traditional view of homosexuality and sexual ethics.' However, when asked whether he believes homosexuality is 'normal, natural and healthy,' he said he could not answer that with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response," ONN reported.

"He said 'in a professional therapy situation' it is accurate to say that 'homosexuals can live normal, natural, and healthy lives that are free of mental illness,'" added ONN.

Although Throckmorton has been known in the past as a defender of the ex-gay movement and reorientation therapy, he has been distancing himself increasingly from those positions in recent years, and has even rejected the "Day of Truth," in which high school students seek to inform their peers about the immorality of homosexual behavior, calling it "mischief," and saying that it "builds more walls than bridges."

Throckmorton's defection from the ex-gay movement has been met with condemnation by Evangelicals.  "Though he works for an evangelical institution, Pennsylvania-based Grove City College, which advertises itself on faith-based websites as 'authentically Christian,' Warren promotes a new, morally neutral paradigm on homosexuality that affirms people’s ‘Sexual Identity’ according to their feelings (and comfort level with same)," laments Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH).

"Hold on…. This is wholly against Scripture: there is nothing in the Bible or the long history of Judeo-Christian tradition that even hints at ascribing a morally-neutral or worse — a 'valued identity' — to sexual sin," he adds.

Helping patients to form a gay "identity"

LaBarbera is referring to Throckmorton's "Sexual Identity Therapy," a framework for therapists treating patients who are conflicted about their sexual desires.

Published in 2007 by Throckmorton and fellow psychologist Mark A. Yarhouse, "Sexual Identity Therapy" affirms that the therapist should accept the values of the client, and then help the client to create a "sexual identity" that fits those values—including a "gay" identity, if is in accordance with the client's value system.

"Sexuality and moral values and attitudes are important aspects of personality. However, clients value each of these functions in different ways. We believe that the therapist should not attempt to persuade clients about how to value these dimensions but can assist clients to determine their own valuations," write Throckmorton and Yarhouse.

They later add that "some religious individuals will determine that their religious identity is the preferred organizing principle for them, even if it means choosing to live with sexual feelings they do not value. Conversely, some religious individuals will determine that their religious beliefs may become modified to allow integration of same-sex eroticism within their valued identity. We seek to provide therapy recommendations that respect these options."

Dr. Throckmorton's Strange About-Face

In recent years, Throckmorton has done an about-face with regard to his position on homosexual reorientation therapy. Abandoning his previous stance of defending ex-homosexuals and reorientation therapy, he has begun to express skepticism that homosexuals can change in most cases.  He has also begun to backpedal on his previous emphasis on the evidence in favor of environmental causes for homosexual orientation, instead asserting biological factors as an explanation for the phenomenon.

The "cause [of homosexual orientation] is a scientific mystery," he wrote in a recent article for Britain's Independent newspaper. "However, we do know that once established sexual orientation seems to be quite durable. Several studies have found brain differences between homosexual and heterosexual people."

"While it seems unlikely that there is one biological or genetic cause for all homosexuals, there are data which suggest that genetic and hormonal factors during pre-natal development have some impact on our desires, in different ways for different people," he added.

Throckmorton's previous defense of the ex-gay movement even led him in 2004 to create a documentary, "I Do Exist," allowing former homosexuals to give their testimony regarding their transformations.  However, Throckmorton is now repudiating the film, using vague references to "changes" that has says have taken place since he produced it.

In a Frequently Asked Questions posting on his website about the documentary, Throckmorton writes that "the stories of the people involved were freely offered and reflected their experience at that time. Since then, more changes have taken place. It is not appropriate to see the film as a testament to change of sexual orientation. Rather, the video has a place in the history of the ex-gay movement and may be of interest to those who study that movement."

"I believe it is important for me to say that I Do Exist is not a current depiction of what I believe to be accurate about sexual orientation," he concludes.

In addition, Throckmorton has broken off his formerly friendly relationship with the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), which supports psychologists who offer sexual reorientation therapy to homosexuals.

Although he once cited studies by NARTH psychologists in his own writings, participated in conferences, and even accepted the organization's Sigmund Freud Award, Throckmorton now regularly writes blog entries attacking the organization, after having canceled his last scheduled appearance at a 2006 NARTH conference.

Under fire from fellow Evangelicals

Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality has been denouncing Throckmorton's new "Sexual Identity Framework" on his website.

"Folks, I had to laugh the other day when heretical Grove City College Assistant Prof Warren Throckmorton accused pro-family groups advocating a walkout on the nationwide, pro-homosexual ‘Day of Silence’ with 'mischief.'  You see, 'Mischief' is Throckmorton’s middle name," wrote LaBarbera in a recent post.

"Throckmorton’s and Regent University’s Mark Yarhouse’s 'Sexual Identity Therapy' model grants the possibility that some clients may come to embrace a positive 'gay identity' that 'modifies' their religious beliefs in such a way as to 'allow integration of same-sex eroticism within their valued identity,'" wrote LaBarbera.

"Would you want your child counseled at Grove City College?" he asks readers. "How can an evangelical Christian college like Grove City that claims to follow the Bible affirm a 'gay' 'sexual identity' that values 'same-sex eroticism'—especially for a person struggling in his conscience against homosexuality?"

Former homosexual Michael Glatze, who once published the national magazine Young Gay America and now speaks out against the homosexual lifestyle, is condemning Throckmorton for his permissive stance towards homosexuality, and for distorting his own statements.

"He, like so many professing Christians, peddles a false gospel about homosexual sin that includes the lie that homosexuality 'might be OK for some people.'  Of course, this false gospel will seem preferable for many because it requires less moral responsibility than the true gospel. But that does not make it right."

"I have experienced Professor Throckmorton’s forked tongue, as he has pretended to seek 'my side' of the story various times, then turned around and told a biased side of the same story, in a public sphere, with the intention of discrediting my testimony and shaming my stance for Gospel truth," writes Glatze.

Throckmorton has responded to LaBarbera's criticisms by claiming that the American Psychological Association's guidelines require him to take a neutral stand with regard to the sexual morality of the client. However, the texts he cites by the APA do not mention sexual morality, and do not prohibit value judgments by the therapists, only prohibiting the imposition of values that are not directly related to the therapy.

After agreeing to an email interview with LifeSiteNews, Dr. Throckmorton refused to answer the questions submitted, claiming they were "slanted." The questions sent to Dr. Throckmorton, are available at this link.  His latest rebuttal to Peter LaBarbera can be found here.

Contact Information:

President Richard Jewell
Grove City College
724-458-2500
[email protected]

Warren Throckmorton
Grove City College
[email protected]

Related Links:

Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH)

Sexual Identity Therapy: Practice framework for managing sexual identity conflicts

FREE pro-life news.

Stay up-to-date on the issues you care about the most. Subscribe today. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

Two Congressmen confirm: National 20-week ban on abortion will come up for a vote shortly

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 17, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A bill to end abortion in the United States after 20 weeks will move forward, and it will have the strong support of two leading pro-life Congressmen, the two Republicans told LifeSiteNews.com at the eighth annual Susan B. Anthony List Campaign for Life Summit on Thursday.

Rep. Chris Smith, R-NJ, told LifeSiteNews and the National Catholic Register that ongoing House discussions on H.R. 36, the "Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act," will result in a pro-life bill moving forward.

"Very good language" is being put together, Smith told The Register. He told LifeSiteNews that he fully anticipated being able to support the final bill, because the House Republican caucus "wouldn't have something that would be unsupportable. Our leadership is genuinely pro-life."

In 2013, the "Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act" easily passed through the House of Representatives, only to be stalled by a Democratic-controlled Senate. This year, an identical bill was halted by Rep. Renee Ellmers, R-NC, and other Republicans -- surprising and angering pro-life leaders who thought its passage was assured. That bill, H.R. 36, is now being rewritten so it can be voted on by the full House, though its final wording remains uncertain.

Some fear that the House leadership will modify the bill to mollify Ellmers. She and others objected that the bill allows women to abort a child after 20 weeks in the case of rape – but only if they report that rape to the authorities.

Pro-life activists say removing the reporting requirement would take abortionists at their word that the women whose children they abort claimed to be raped. Congresswoman Ellmers has publicly stated the House leadership is considering such a proposal.

Jill Stanek, who was recently arrested on Capitol Hill as part of a protest to encourage Republicans to pass H.R. 36, said that would be "a loophole big enough for a Mack truck."

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Congressman Smith said the bill will come to the floor shortly. "The commitment to this bill is ironclad; we just have to work out some details," Smith said.

He also noted that, while a vote on the 20-week ban has been delayed for nearly three months, "we did get the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act passed, and that would have been in the queue now, so we just reversed" the order of the two bills.

Congressman Smith spoke to both outlets shortly after participating in a panel at the Summit.

Another speaker was Rep. Steve King, R-IA, who also supports the 20-week ban.

"I can't think of what” language that is actively under consideration could make him rethink his support for the bill, King said. He also told attendees that the nation was moving in a direction of supporting life.

The outspoken Congressman declined to answer further, noting "that's asking me to anticipate an unknown hypothetical."

The annual Campaign for Life Summit and its related gala drew other high-profile speakers, including presidential candidate Senator Rand Paul, potential presidential hopeful Senator Lindsay Graham, and Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus.  

Advertisement
Featured Image
"Someone who doesn’t flinch at the dismemberment of babies is not going to flinch at the dismemberment of some evangelical baker’s conscience."
Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon

Pro-lifers are winning. So now they’re coming for our cupcakes?

Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon van Maren

As I travel across Canada (and at times the United States) speaking on abortion and various facets of the Culture of Death, one of the things I hear often is a hopelessness, a despair that the West is being flattened by the juggernaut of the Sexual Revolution. There is a feeling among many people that the restriction of religious liberty, the continued legality of abortion, and the redefinition of marriage are inevitable.

This is, of course, one of the most prominent and successful strategies of the Sexual Revolutionaries—create an aura of inevitability while concurrently demonizing all those who oppose their new and mangled “progress” as Neanderthals on the cusp of being left behind by History. That inevitability becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, because many people don’t realize that the various battles in the Sexual Revolution actually all correlate to one another—that what we are seeing now is the end game of an incredibly vast and well-planned cultural project.

It is because we miss many of these connections that we often cannot see, with clarity, how the culture wars are actually unfolding. I read with great interest a recent column by Rev. Douglas Wilson, eloquently titled “With stirrups raised to Molech.”

“We are now much occupied with the issues swirling around same sex mirage,” he writes, “but we need to take great care not to get distracted. Why have the homosexual activists gone all in on this issue? Why is their prosecutorial zeal so adamant? We went, in just a matter of months, from ‘let’s let individual states’ decide on this, to federal judges striking down state statutes, followed up hard by official harassment of florists, bakers, and photographers. Why the anger, and why the savage over-reach? And do they really think we couldn’t remember all the things they were assuring us of this time last year?”

Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook

It’s a compelling question, and one that I’ve heard many Christians puzzling over recently. Why do the advocates of the Sexual Revolution despise those who disagree with them so viciously? It is partly because their cultural project does not, as they claim, consist of “living and let live.” It is about compulsory acceptance of any and all sexual behaviors, with tax-payer funding for the rubbers and pills they need to ensure all such behaviors remain sterile, and extermination crews to suction, poison, and dismember any inconvenient fetuses that may come into being as the result of casual coitus.

The ancient mantra “the State has no business in the bedrooms of the nation” has long been abandoned—the emboldened Sexual Revolutionaries now demand that politicians show up at their exhibitionist parades of public indecency, force schools to impose their so-called “morally neutral” view of sexuality on children, and force into silence those who still hold to traditional values.

Rev. Wilson, however, thinks that this loud and vicious war on conscience may be about even more than that. The pro-life cause, he notes, has been very successful in the Unites States. The abortion rate is the lowest it has been since 1973. Hundreds of pro-life laws are passing on the state level. The abortion industry has been successfully stigmatized. True, the successes are, for pro-lifers, often too feeble and not nearly adequate enough in the face of such unrestrained bloodshed. Nevertheless, the momentum has turned against the Sexual Revolutionaries who have championed abortion for decades—their shock and anger at the strength of the pro-life movement evident in pro-abortion signs at rallies that read, “I can’t believe I still have to protest this s**t.”

It is because of the pro-life movement’s success, Wilson muses, that the Sexual Revolutionaries may be coming at us with such fury. “If a nation has slaughtered 50 million infants,” he writes, “they are not going to suddenly get a sense of decency over you and your cupcakes. Now this explains their lack of proportion, and their refusal to acknowledge the rights of florists. Someone who doesn’t flinch at the dismemberment of babies is not going to flinch at the dismemberment of some evangelical baker’s conscience. This reveals their distorted priorities, of course, but it also might be revealing a strategy. Is the homosexual lobby doing this because they are freaking out over their losses on the pro-life front? And are they doing so in a way intended to distract us away from an issue where we are slowly, gradually, inexorably, winning?”

It’s a fascinating perspective. It’s true—and has always been true historically—that when one group of human beings is classified as nonhuman by a society as nonhuman and subsequently butchered, the whole of society is degraded. No nation and no culture can collectively and systematically kill so many human beings without a correlating hardening of the conscience. But on the pro-life front, there has been decades of fierce resistance, hundreds of incremental victories, and a renewed energy among the upcoming generation of activists. For the Sexual Revolutionaries who thought the battle was over when Roe v. Wade was announced in 1973, this must be a bitter pill to swallow indeed.

Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Lisa Bourne

, ,

‘Prominent’ Catholics attacking Archbishop Cordileone are big donors to Pelosi and pro-abort Democrats

Lisa Bourne
By Lisa Bourne

Note: To sign a petition supporting Archbishop Cordileone, click here

SAN FRANCISCO, CA, April 17, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Big donors to the Democrat Party and pro-abortion Nancy Pelosi are among those publicly harassing San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone for protecting Catholic identity in the area’s Catholic high schools.

A big-ticket full-page ad ran April 16 in the San Francisco Chronicle attacking the archbishop and calling Pope Francis to oust him for his efforts to reinforce Catholic principles in the schools.

A number of prominent San Francisco-area residents identifying as Catholic are signatories of the ad, and several are wealthy donors to Democrat entities and pro-abortion politicians, Catholic Vote reports.

Federal Election Commission records indicate Charles Geschke, Adobe Systems chairman and previous head of the Board of Trustees at the University of San Francisco, gave more than $240,000 to Democrat groups, as well as $2,300 to Nancy Pelosi and $4,000 to John Kerry, both politicians who claim to be Catholic but support abortion and homosexual “marriage.”

Also on the list is political consultant and businessman Clint Reilly, who gave nearly $60,000 to Democrat organizations, along with $5,000 to Barack Obama, whose administration vehemently promotes abortion and homosexual “marriage” and has continually opposed religious liberty. Reilly gave $4,600 to Pelosi as well.

Another individual in the ad attacking the archbishop who also gave big campaign donations to California pro-abort Democrats was Lou Giraudo, a former city commissioner and business executive who contributed more than $24,000 to Nancy Pelosi, $6,000 to Dianne Feinstein and $4,300 to Barbara Boxer.

Nancy Pelosi herself challenged the archbishop for his stance on Catholic teaching last year when she tried to pressure him out of speaking at the March for Marriage in Washington D.C., claiming the event was “venom masquerading as virtue.”

The archbishop responded in a letter that he was obliged “as a bishop, to proclaim the truth—the whole truth—about the human person and God’s will for our flourishing ... especially the truth about marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife.”

The April 16 ad attacking Archbishop Cordileone was the latest in an ongoing assault since the archbishop took steps in February to strengthen Catholic identity in the schools and clarify for faculty and staff in handbooks and contract language the long-standing expectation that they uphold Church principles. 

It said Archbishop Cordileone has “fostered an atmosphere of division and intolerance” and called on Pope Francis to remove him.

“Holy Father, Please Provide Us With a Leader True to Our Values and Your Namesake,” the ad said. “Please Replace Archbishop Cordileone.”

The Confraternity of Catholic Clergy (CCC), a national association for priests and deacons, condemned Archbishop Cordileone’s harassers in a statement, saying the archbishop “teaches in conformity to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”

“The character assassination and uncharitable venom being cast upon a bishop merely defending the doctrines of his religion is appalling and repugnant,” the CCC said. 

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

“It is totally inappropriate, improper and unjust for the media and others to vilify and brutally attack him when he is doing precisely what an ordained minister and pastor of souls is obligated to do,” the group stated, “namely, speak the truth in season and out of season.”

Those behind the attack ad said the proposed handbook language was mean-spirited, and that they were “committed Catholics inspired by Vatican II,” who “believe in the traditions of conscience, respect and inclusion upon which our Catholic faith was founded.”

The Archdiocese of San Francisco denounced the ad upon its release, saying it was a misrepresentation of Catholic teaching and the nature of the teacher contract, and a misrepresentation of the spirit of the Archbishop.

“The greatest misrepresentation of all is that the signers presume to speak for “the Catholic Community of San Francisco,” the archdiocese responded. “They do not.”

The CCC pointed out that just as physicians are expected to be faithful to the Hippocratic Oath, bishops, priests, and deacons are expected to be faithful to the Church, its teachings and its authority, “since their objective is the salvation of souls, not a popularity contest.” 

In openly declaring their support for Archbishop Cordileone, the group urged the media and others to show “prudence, civility, and fair-mindedness” toward those with whom they disagree.

“He took an oath to be faithful to the Gospel,” the Confraternity stated of Archbishop Cordileone, “and in the words of the disciples in the New Testament, ‘better to obey God than men.’”

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook