Jim asks "What business would any organization, especially a Church, have in supporting this sort of therapy?"

Well, if what you are referring to is not "reparative therapy," but rather the therapy referred to in the paragraph:

"But if the client still believes that affirming his same-sex attractions would be sinful or destructive to his faith, psychologists can help him construct an identity that rejects the power of those attractions, the APA says. That might require living celibately, learning to deflect sexual impulses or framing a life of struggle as an opportunity to grow closer to God."

isn't this pretty much the same situation as for straight (or gay) men and women who feel called to the monastic life?

Our theologically diverse task force in the Diocese of San Diego struggled with this issue as we contemplated what scripture, tradition, and reason tell us about discerning holiness in same-sex partnerships. We felt a need to recognize that some people go through a period of sexual confusion and that therapy can be helpful in sorting out that confusion. Other people voluntarily enter therapy in an attempt to live as heterosexual.

As with many controversies in academic papers, the meatiest part of this one ended up in an endnote. Here is what we said:

Therapy is a complicated issue in the gay community. Because gay men and lesbians were historically portrayed as “sick” individuals, many of those individuals chafe at the idea that therapy should be available that is designed to “cure” them, that is, to turn them into heterosexuals. Indeed, the American Psychiatric Association, in 1973, removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses (see p. 35 of this report). Still, there are religious and quasi-religious organizations that advocate for the availability of what has been called “reparative,” “restorative,” or “conversion” therapy to provide services for individuals who are struggling with their sexuality and for families of adolescents who may be lesbian or gay. These forms of therapy have adherents and claims of success (see, for example, Cohen, Richard. Coming Out Straight: Understanding and Healing Homosexuality. Winchester, VA: Oakhill Press, 2000; and Hallman, Janelle. The Heart of Female Same –Sex Attraction: A Comprehensive Counseling Resource. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2008.). These claims are countered by statements from groups such as the American Psychological Association to the effect that there exists no scientific evidence that such a therapeutic approach is safe or effective (see American Psychological Association. Answers to Your Questions For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality. Retrieved May 15, 2009, from http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html). The Episcopal Church’s 2003 General Convention also weighed in on this topic with the following resolution (C004): “Resolved, That the 74th General Convention of The Episcopal Church affirm that sexuality is a gift of God and insists that any religious, spiritual, psychological, or psychiatric treatment which seeks to assist those who are confused about or unhappy with their sexual orientation not be coercive or manipulative; and be it further Resolved, That this Church oppose any religious, spiritual, psychological, or psychiatric consulting or treatment which compromises our baptismal covenant to respect the dignity of every human being, affirming that medical treatment, psychological therapy, and pastoral counseling should conform to the professional standards of the respective professions.”

You may find the entire report at the link posted with this comment.

Bill Eadie

Could we send a copy of the Executive Summary and Appendix A to Canterbury? Although I suppose folks at Changing Anglican or Inclusive Church can be trusted to do so.

I find this report interesting in the respect the committee had for the importance of faith in the lives of all, including GLBT folks. One wonders if some licensed mental health practitioners might see these as moral or vocational issues that are in our purview in the community of faith and make appropriate referral. We Episcopalians, at least, are well prepared to appreciate the importance of good clinical information as we make our own decisions. I find myself wondering whether the debates at Anaheim would have been different if this report had been out in May or June.

And yes, Bill, this is much the same as for those who feel called to monastic devotion. Indeed, I suppose we could at least explore concerns about sexual activity, separated from sexual identity as evidence of some call. What this affirms is the position that many of us share: that there is a difference between exploring how an individual might be called spiritually or morally, and requiring specific behaviors of all persons in a category, whether called or not.

Marshall Scott

In a recent issue of The New Zealand Journal of Counselling (of which I am a co-editor), we published a two-part article on Gay Affirmative Psychotherapy, by Andrew Kirby, a NZ psychotherapist. The second part of the combo dealt with how to work with clients who are caught between their homosexuality and the anti-homosexual bias of the church--in other words, who want to establish healthy same-sex relationships, but cannot get past certain passages of scripture or the bashing that goes on among some of the more conservative congregations. I would be happy to supply anyone who wishes with a copy of one or both parts of the article, or the two can be found at http://www.nzac.org.nz/ under Publications/Journals, vols. 28(2) and 29(1).

Philip Culbertson

Hi Bill G., I was referring to reparative therapy. I think people on the left need to make room for the possibility that the type of work describedin the WSJ story might be helpful to some folks.

So-called integrative therapy, which would chart a middle course between fraudulent reparative therapy and LGBT-affirmation, at first appears reasonable. Unlike reparative therapy, it acknowledges the reality of the sexual orientation of clients and, unlike LGBT affirming therapies, it seems more open to religious values. Clients who insist on holding on to anti-LGBT religions can be taught to stay within the lines of their traditions. They can, for example, choose celibacy. The problem, however, is that celibacy, then, would be seen as a solution for a whole class of persons, such as gay Church of England clergy. This is a morally unacceptable solution because it singles out LGBTs for separate and unequal treatment and offers the false hope that one can serve two masters. Therapists have the moral obligation to tell religious LGBT clients that combining the two is very difficult and that in general LGBTs do better without religion or with more liberal religions.

Freud's distinction between two kinds of mourning: mania (which claims to have got over the loss of the other) and melancholia (which simply cannot let go) may be helpful here because it calls into question any notion of a happy integration of identity, let alone a complicated back and forth movement between religion and sexual orientation. The patient has either eaten something or is still being eaten by the lost object, to borrow some phrases from French analyst Maria Torok. I see no way that an easy path can be found for someone to combine a strict anti-gay religion with their being LGBT.

Gary Paul Gilbert

I particularly liked the take on the issue of celibacy of one of the ELCA reports on this topic. It stated, "Luther himself considered celibacy to be a special gift of the Spirit granted to few people." If such is the case, we cannot expect a whole class of people to have been blessed by the Spirit in this way, though some surely may be so blessed.

Bill Eadie