Phil Lawler over at Catholic Culture wrote the following recently:*Some people, it seems, are especially susceptible alcohol abuse. The root causes of this predisposition are not well understood. But even without rushing in where psychologists fear to tread, we can say two things. A tendency toward alcoholism is a disorder, not a sin. Yet getting drunk remains sinful—even for those who may have some innate weakness.
Now with that in mind, would anyone suggest barring psychologists from helping people to overcome a tendency toward alcoholism? Let’s hope not; such a ban would be a gross violation of individual freedoms. So is the ban on “reparative therapy.”*There exist testimonies that say reparative therapy works. There are studies cited by the likes of Gov. Christie that say reparative therapy is harmful (even though data in those studies themselves admit to a diversity of causes, inconsistencies, and psychological mystery surrounding some person’s sexual tendencies).
Thoughts on the analogy or otherwise?
Also, is it fair to say, even from the most secular perspective, that someone with same-gendered attraction can at least in some sense be said to be “disordered” because his emotional search seeks something contrary to what is complementary to his own body? Is there a conflict between his body and mind. I would think a secular response might be what about priests not seeking that which is complementary to their body. If so, could we respond to that with, well, from a secular perspective then, both celibacy and homosexuality are therefore disordered. Correct?
Random thoughts… :o