In yet another example of the type of thinking that alienates reasonable people, NARTH’s Dr. Joseph Nicolosi had this to say about fallen evangelist Ted Haggard:
“If this man is saying, ‘This is a part of me that I abhor,’ why can’t we respect that?” Nicolosi asked. “Why do we have to attribute that to something external and take away the dignity of the individual to express how he feels?”
Most therapists would not suggest that the appropriate response to self-abhorrence is affirmation, but Nicolosi is not most therapists. Ignoring Haggard’s claims that he had “sought assistance in a variety of ways”, Nicolosi claims that he knows the answer.
Nicolosi suggested that he could help Haggard if the evangelist was prepared for “deep, emotional work.”
“We’re talking about looking at your life squarely in the eye – facing the realities that you did not get certain central affirmations from your mother or your father,” Nicolosi said.
Yep. There it is. Do some deep emotional work to face the reality that you did not get affirmations from your parents and hey, presto, all is better. Oh, and also embrace your self-abhorrence.
It’s little wonder that NARTH and Nicolosi receive no respect outside of anti-gay activist circles.
I wonder what requires the deepest emotional work, overcoming deviant and deceptive behaviors or conquering the same-sex attractions.
It amazes me that if God really were to condemn same-sex sexual activity and that the Cross of Jesus and Holy Spirit were so mighty, then why is it so hard to repent of this sin? Why all the years of counseling, the deep work, the teams of ministers?
Isn’t Jesus enough? Or maybe Jesus is not involved in the process at all and this is simply the arm of flesh in action.
I’m with Peterson on this. I always knew that “daddy didn’t love me enough” was the standard theory behind the ex-gay movement. But Nicolosi seems to be implying that it’s the only theory. Sorry. That doesn’t fly with me.
Disputed Mutability has mentioned before that the ex-gay approach to change is strange. Would you try to find a deep-seeded psychological trauma that made you want to lie or be proud? No. So, for those of us who think homosexuality is a sin, why do we need the bad Freudian lingo for homosexuality? Jesus is enough. But wait, I forget that some of Exodus’ ads don’t even mention Him at all. Hmm…
(Note: I don’t deny that some homosexuals have had pretty crappy childhoods, or that those childhoods might have partially contributed to their views on sex, but I hate the “one size fits all” approach that is often used).
“We’re talking about looking at your life squarely in the eye – facing the realities that you did not get certain central affirmations from your mother or your father,” Nicolosi said.
I’m reminded of the saying, “to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” Nicolosi is the man, and his tired old theories are the hammer. What person, looking inward deeply enough, would not find something which would looked like a deficiency in their childhood? This is snake oil, though even snake oil has some value.
What a narcissist Nicolosi is! He knows exactly what wrong with the Haggard, even though he has never evaluated him, could fix Haggard if he is “prepared for deep, emotional work.”
Wow! This man can read minds and change sexual orientaion too. I swear he thinks he’s Superman.
I hate to break this to Nicolosi, but EVERYONE has parent issues! Even non-gays! Parents, however well meaning they are and no matter how hard they try, are never perfect. They cannot read their child’s mind (or the future). But, everyone’s not gay. [Incidently, I think that’s probably why he choose it as his thesis for “the cause of the gay” because nearly everyone has had issues with their parents at some point in their lives.]
“[…that’s probably why he chose it as his thesis…because nearly everyone has had issues with their parents at some point in their lives.]”
Dingdingdingdingding….
You called it, RebLaw.
For those who’d like a link to the AP story the Nicolosi quotes came from, here’s a link to Haggard Case Revives Gay Therapy Debate.
Disputed Mutability has mentioned before that the ex-gay approach to change is strange. Would you try to find a deep-seeded psychological trauma that made you want to lie or be proud? No. So, for those of us who think homosexuality is a sin, why do we need the bad Freudian lingo for homosexuality? Jesus is enough.
I was just thinking something similar – I can’t think of any other “sin” that is perceived as something inherent in the person that must be fought at all costs, if not completely changed. Other than, perhaps, pathological liars, I cannot even think of any recognized mental illness that matches. When people with depression, or bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia get appropriate medication and therapy, their lives tend to get better and easier to manage, not worse. People with bipolar disorder will sometimes go often meds because they crave the “high” of the manic phase of the disorder, but even that is transitory, unlike sexual, emotional and psychological attractions.
Did Nicolosi just offer to treat Haggard? Now that is an interesting way to get clients.
For those who’d like a link to…
Thanks Autumn. Oooops I missed that. I’ve added it now.
Funny how he respects self-abhorrence, and yet gives short shrift to self-acceptance.
Some psychologist he is.
First, let me make clear that I believe homosexuality is NOT sinful, NOT abnormal, NOT inherently self-destructive.
That being said, I can’t buy the argument advanced by several people in this chain, summed up well by CPT_Doom as “I can’t think of any other “sin” that is perceived as something inherent in the person that must be fought at all costs, if not completely changed.”
What about alcoholism? What about pedophiles and sex offenders? What about (let’s really go to the extreme) serial murderers?
These clearly wrong and harmful behaviors are often driven by an innner compulsion that seems “inherent in the person” and “must be fought at all costs, if not completely changed.” There is even some scientific evidence that such compulsions may be rooted in genetic or other biological factors. The studies aren’t conclusive, but neither are studies on the biological factors influencing sexual orientation.
What if we do eventually find that alcoholics and pedophiles are born with those tendencies? Will that make it morally ok to drink themselves to death or molest children?
My point here is very simple: you cannot successfully argue against people like Nicolosi by “proving” that homosexuality is inherent. At the end of the day, they will turn around and say, “Fine. You were born gay. It’s still a sinful, destructive, wrong behavior, and you ought to fight against it rather than give in.”
In fact, that’s exactly what Alan Chambers says in his recent comments on the “multi-causal” origins of homosexuality. It also happens to be exactly what my own wife and brother both said to me when I decided to come out again after 30 years as an ex-gay.
In my view, our real argument with ex-gay and anti-gay ideologies has to focus on the core issue: can homosexuality be a moral choice?
That means examining the traditional religious prohibitions: Why does the church cling so tenaciously to a few Bible verses condemning sex between men, when so many similar condemnations have been modified or discarded?
That means confronting the “ick” factor about sex itself. How much “moral” revulsion at homosexuality boils down to: “EEEW! They put things in their anus!”?
Most of all, it means that those of us who do choose to come out and live openly as homosexual need to be visible with the reality of our lives and our relationships, to demonstrate that our sexuality can be consistent with a moral, healthy, mature human life.
Nicolosi trivializes the true relationships that people have with their fathers, which are always a mixture of some good and some bad. All relationships are complex. To say that all gays had bad relationships with their parents is simply not true. My lover and I both had close with our Dads. And our Moms. How does he know what kind of relationship Haggard had? He begins with a presupposition, not inquiry. Not a very scientific or ethical approach to therapy.
Liadon, that is the most concise, intelligent, inspired and helpful argument I have seen regarding the issue of “change therapy” and whether homosexuality is moral or not. I believe that truth will continue to march across this world and eventually through years of struggle and change we will finally have the deeper acceptance and love we see as GLBT people. Most of all we will be getting it from within ourselves as we connect with God and our spiritual selves. Jesus did say “by their fruits shall ye know them.” I think that means that if our actions bring forth love, good works, service, and help our society progress in wholeness we are bearing good fruit. When we disconnect from the whole (the “gay ghetto” experience) and isolate ourselves from the rest of our diverse brothers and sisters I think we are not completely happy and whole as human beings. The more we integrate into society fulfilling our greatest dreams as out and open GLBT people the more whole and happy we will be.