On Homosexuality

Comments by Dr. Thomas Brecht and Archimandrite Dr. Chrysostomos Agiogregorites

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. 1 (1984), Nos. 4-5, pp. 66-70.

 

Could you, as psychologists, comment on homosexuality? It seems to be talked about everywhere. Our Priest cannot tell us much about it and we do not know how to react when asked about the Orthodox Church’s stand on this issue. Is this a sickness or a moral problem? (T.Y., IL)

In an age where homosexuality, or “alternative sexual preference,” has become widely acceptable (at least among many heterodox Christians), it would appear that some comments in response to your inquiry are in order. The subject is a delicate —even embarrassing— one, being something that only a few decades ago was seldom if ever discussed in public. Now it is a matter of casual conversation.

We should be aware that the American Psychiatric Association declared, several years ago, that homosexuality was no longer a psychiatric or emotional problem, unless the patient considered it such. That pronouncement is now heeded in many psychiatric and psychological circles and many therapists refuse to treat homosexuality as such as a mental disorder.

This is an interesting role reversal for professionals who are very possessive of their function as diagnosticians. As a matter of fact, off the record, many mental health professionals who attended the convention where homosexuality was removed as a diagnostic category have noted that gay organizations greatly pressured the delegates. This lobbying activity even started as the delegates entered the convention hall to vote! One psychiatrist was willing to admit some resentfulness as to the way he felt the convention had been handled —as though a disorder could be removed from therapeutic consideration simply because a majority vote decided so.

Generally, the homosexual patients whom I have seen in my years of psychotherapeutic practice fall into two categories: first, those who are not content with their problem; and second, those who have been convinced that homosexuality is part of their “identity.” In either case, there is an underlying discontent, so that even the second kind of patient, in that he comes for therapy, seemingly knows at an unconscious level that something is wrong. It is simply the influence of “gay” groups, a conscience-assuaging liberal therapist, or even a gay church that has given the homosexual a rhetorical “satisfaction” with his problem that is not, indeed, genuine. Such phantom satisfaction is as reasonable as a process by which an affliction is made neutral by a majority vote.

In treating homosexual patients, I often resort to a behavioral point of view at first. The sexual drive which they experience is essentially neutral, in terms of the dynamics of the personality, so it can theoretically be focused on either sex or even on a non-sexual creative process. In other words, “gayness” can be perceived as a learned response —one which is tragically reinforced by those who present the condition as “natural” or as a positive “alternative.” The homosexual patient can be treated as though he has a misdirected energy. And therapies based on such assumptions actually work.

There can be, of course, psychodynamic dimensions to homsexuality, such as underlying hatred of one’s self, one’s family, or society. The aberrant sexual behavior is then used to embarrass, humiliate, or “get back” at others. But the sexual behavior is still learned and reinforced. It can be re-channeled. Once this is done, then one can begin to look seriously at the psychodynamic factors which led to the aberrant behavior.

In the proverbial “nutshell,” hence, homosexuality is deeply bound up with misdirected psychological drives, inappropriate modes of behavior, and psychodynamic problems that reach deep into the personality. It is an illness in the classical sense.

Now in terms of homosexuality and its moral meaning, we might note that the Orthodox Church exists for the reason of renewing man, of restoring him to a healthy, god-like state. That which is immoral is not so much that which transgresses a “law,” but that which violates the “natural” laws of man’s being. Nothing can be more immoral than that which violates man’s very divine image and which spots him with sin. The particular immorality of homosexuality, therefore, must be understood in terms of the extent to which it degrades the human. If sexuality as a means to procreation is, while blessed by the Church in marriage, a distortion of man as a spiritual creature, what could be more destructive to the divine image of man than a physical sexual act which distorts even the procreative impulse —which turns an impulse than can be elevated (in that man’s procreative drive is a usurpation of the power of creation which belongs to God, but nonetheless rises out of his sense of his own god-like image, even if that image is distorted in the procreative drive) into an impulse which centers fully, wholly, and consciously on lust and the baser motivations of the human being?

No Orthodox should condemn anyone who has fallen to sin. He should try to restore the person to spiritual health. In the case of homosexuality, anyone who would deny that it is morally wrong runs the terrible risk of misleading a fellow human.

- Dr. Brecht

 

Homosexuality is a difficult disease to write about. Humans are frail and cruel creatures and their weaknesses often dictate the form of their attacks on others. Sexual identity is a fragile. Fallen man is constantly plagued by uncertainty about himself. And these uncertainties, when drawn from the general fabric of human experience, often form monstrous social ills which —at least until very recent times— lurk in the shadows of social consciousness. Homosexuality is one of these ills. It is so feared by society in general, that individuals learn to fear it in the recesses of their minds. And when they lash out in violence against others, they often take as their mental weapons those things which they consider most dangerous and hideous. Hence the devastating weapon of accusing others of homosexuality.

No spiritual guide (or psychologist, for that matter) is without experience among those who attribute their own self-doubts to others — in the form of horrendous sins. Those who doubt themselves often accuse others of the sins which they fear in themselves. And often out of jealousy for those who are successful or popular, less-successful or popular individuals will express their jealousy in accusations which they know are so foul, that they will without fail taint the person or persons whom they are attacking. This kind of phantom homosexuality is something which we must all fear. It convicts innocent people. It serves jealousy and hate. And, enigmatically enough, it allows those who are beset, not by real ills, but by phantom fears to focus on the ills which they fear and thus often even bring them to fruition. As an old adage goes, “that which you hate is that which you become.” And so it is that those who make false accusations are also often victims of the ill which they falsely attribute to others.

Now, there are, of course, homosexuals. It is an unfortunate thing, but as pride, self-centered life-styles, arrogance, and love of self enter into society —and even into the realm of the Church—, homosexuality increases. This is simple to explain. One classical theory of homosexuality links the illness to narcissism —excessive love of one’s self. The more that one likes himself, the more apt he is to express sexual love for something like him: viz., a person of like sex. It is not surprising that one of the most deadly spiritual sins, pride, leads to one of the most deadly moral diseases, homosexuality. It is wholly logical.

One would wish that the following would not have to be written. But it must. There is in our age an increase in immorality among those who are particularly called forth to stand above such: teachers, physicians, and —alas!— clergymen. With regard to the clergy, especially in those Christian denominations where celibacy is practiced as a virtue, there has always been a tendency for “outsiders” to accuse clerics of abnormality. As vulgar as such accusations are, it was often thought by many that unmarried men or women were more likely to fall to abnormal sexual behavior. (In fact, modern research does not support this assumption. Many people with aberrant tendencies hide under the shelter of marriage or anything that might hide their abnormalities.) At the present time, however, these largely fanciful accusations can be paralleled with actual instances of abnormality. Those of us raised with very strict moral values and under the “shelter” of a conservative social context may not wish to see or admit this, but it is quite true. We must open our eyes. And we must offer guidance to the confused Faithful; for, indeed, what is more destructive to the whole of a society or to the Church than instances when those whom we should emulate are unworthy of our emulation?

We should be aware that in our age the true spiritual gifts which our forefathers knew so well are fast waning. The clergy are becoming like the worst laymen. They even proclaim their right to be “one of the people.” And especially in the West, where our Orthodox Faith is so new and so fragile, this circumstance has led to spiritual fakery. Where true Fathers, elders, and Saints are very few, it is quite easy for a false spirituality to manifest. In another place [see my book Humility], I have spoken of the psychological dynamics of spiritual pride, which manifests itself as spiritual fakery. There I noted that one who begins to believe that he is a Saint —first, perhaps, out of a need to be “recognized”— finally touches the core of the personality, an ego-empowered force, he mistakes this for the spiritual “heart” of man, which empowers the Saint. He actually believes, in the end, that he is a Saint. And the more powerful the structure which he builds with his ego, the more convinced he is that he motivated by a true spiritual force.

Since the ego is the seat of pride, it should not surprise us that, as spiritual fakery increases, so too does the phenomenon of abnormal behavior —even homosexuality among those who are dedicated to God as examples of purity! This is a frightening thing. But it is not something that should cause scandal to the Faithful, since this is the obvious outcome of misguided spirituality, of incorrect monastic or spiritual practice, and of spirituality that reaches out of the ego and not out of the heart. Rather than be scandalized, the Faithful should heed the sign that all of this is: something which tells us of the serious state of the world and the Church today. The Faithful should also see what spiritual delusion and spiritual fakery can lead to!

Naturally, one who thinks that he is holy and is empowered by his ego cannot find fault with himself. He thus begins to ignore his transgressions and focus on the real or supposed transgressions of others. So, too, it is that we have “saintly” clergymen forsaking love for judgmentalism, hate, nasty spiritual “smugness,” and attacks on others. Sexual falls of the worst kind are simply a result of blindness of the worst kind.

All of those who fall to abnormality are victims of the ego and the self. They are struck by the illness of self-love. They remove themselves from true spirituality. On the one hand, we should pity them and give them our compassion. On the other hand, we should realize that where there is spiritual pride, babble about one’s “saintliness,” the constant judgment of others, and self-adoration —there Satan waits to reduce the human to the lowest sins, even to sins which we cannot imagine possible. If we remember this well, we will learn from the lessons around us, be strengthened in our Faith, and never fall to following those who are spiritual deceivers.

- Father Chrysostomos [later Metropolitan of Etna]