Daring to Speak Its Name

by Mike Aguilina

What is homosexuality? Is it a genetic trait? A lifestyle choice? A psychological illness? A distinct gender?

Public discussion of the issue draws from a jumble of contradictory claims, embodied in seemingly scientific terminology:

•"Sexual orientation"—the term most commonly used to denote someone's patterns of attraction — suggests a more or less permanent condition, present from birth, a positive or negative valence that directs a person's thoughts and actions.

• "Sexual preference" — a term favored by some gay activists—suggests "choice," a freedom highly valued in a consumer culture.

•"Developmental disorder" was the term most commonly applied to the homosexual condition until 1973. A small but growing number of mental-health professionals favor recovery of this understanding of homosexuality as an illness.

Each term implies a different and exclusive way of viewing the homosexual condition. If an "orientation" is innate and permanent, for example, it cannot be a "preference." The terms are contradictory. Yet, in political speech and newspaper editorials, the terms are sometimes used interchangeably.

The confusion, says clinical psychologist Joseph Nicolosi, arises because much of the discussion is driven by social activism rather than hard science. "Gay activists are not sure which political strategy to take," explained Nicolosi, who is co-founder of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), a nonprofit organization based in Encino, Calif. "Activists know that if they say homosexuality is a 'preference,' sounds casual, implying that everybody's kind of bisexual — today, you have chocolate ice cream; tomorrow you have vanilla; either way, it's your choice, and nobody has a right to judge it. The other strategy is to claim 'we're born this. way; it's predetermined, like race; therefore, you can't discriminate against us.' "

The words are fuzzy, but, says psychiatrist Richard Fitzgibbons: "The choice of words is very important. The mental-health professions have been caught up in the propaganda machine."

Fitzgibbons, a Philadelphia-area clinical psychiatrist with 22 years of practice, has consciously chosen to change the language he uses to describe homosexuality. "A number of years ago, I began to find the term 'sexual orientation' to be scientifically inaccurate," he said. "The word implies a type of biological determinant, something fixed. My clinical experience contradicts this."

Fitzgibbons now uses the term "homosexual attractions" instead. "An attraction is not something biologically fixed," he said. "People have claimed a genetic cause for homosexual attractions, but nothing has held up under scrutiny."

Indeed, the choice of one term or another depends largely upon one's view of the causes of homosexuality. "Orientation" is often favored by those who believe there is an innate biological reason for homosexual attractions: a "gay gene" or a different configuration of the brain.

Skewed research

Media coverage of studies conducted in the early 1990s emphasized such "findings." In 1993, Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute claimed to link male homosexuality to a gene on the X chromosome. In 1991, Simon LeVay of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego reported finding differences in brain structures of homosexual men.

But, while LeVay and Hamer's work was reported widely in the popular media, it was harshly criticized by others in the field. In November 1995, Scientific American magazine published a detailed critique, "Gay Genes Revisited: Doubts Arise over Research on the Biology of Homosexuality." The journal reported that Hamer had been charged with "research improprieties" — for excluding subjects whose genetic makeup didn't fit his findings—-and was under investigation by the Federal Office of Research. LeVay's work was not replicated by subsequent research.

Nicolosi points out that all the major studies reported in the early 1990s were conducted by gay researchers or by activists who promoted — the gay agenda. "It's amazing that the same people who accept these studies will dismiss organizations like NARTH for supposed bias," he said.

Thus the scientific bases for what some researchers call "constitutional homosexuality" was weakened. The most widely accepted research still points toward environmental factors such as the role of parents, an early seduction or peer rejection.

But, said Nicolosi, the popular impressions remain, and they have repercussions. "The most important concept promoted by gay activists is the idea that there are certain people for whom homosexuality is normal and natural," Nicolosi said, "and that these are homosexual persons."

Father John Harvey, an Oblate of St. Francis de Sales and the founder of Courage, a support group for Catholics with homosexual attractions, winces when he hears the phrase "homosexual person."

"You know," he told Our Sunday Visitor, "that was the title of my 1986 book, 'The Homosexual Person.' "

Like Fitzgibbons, Father Harvey has chosen to alter his vocabulary. "Today, I would use a different title," he said. "When you use the adjective 'homosexual,' you're labeling and suggesting that 'homosexual' is the most important thing about the person."

The work of Fitzgibbons also persuaded him to reject another word he had used for many years: "orientation."

"Orientation is a strong word," he said. "It means you are homosexual. You're oriented that way, as a compass is oriented toward north, and that's the way it is. The word 'attraction' leaves room for change because our attractions come and go."

Nicolosi agrees, pointing out that the word "orientation" has serious theological implications. "If you believe that some people are essentially homosexual, you turn Christian anthropology on its head. Christianity holds that we are all heterosexual in our God-given nature, though some heterosexuals have a problem with same-sex attractions. If you believe that homosexuality is part of a person's nature, given by God, then homosexual acts become a fulfillment of a person's God-given nature, and that's never been the Christian teaching."

'Objectively disordered'

The editors of the Catechism of the Catholic Church appear to have recognized this distinction. The original draft of the catechism (1994) was modified in 1998 to refer to homosexuality as an "inclination, which is objectively disordered" (no. 2358, Editio Typica).

Still, the characterization of homosexuality as a "problem," "illness" or "disorder" is not exclusively Catholic. It was a truism of the fields of psychiatry and psychology until 1973. That year, the board of trustees of the American Psychiatric Association voted no longer to classify homosexuality as a disorder, but as a normal variant of sexual expression. The decision was confirmed, by a 6-to-4 margin, in a vote of APA membership. Yet, four years later, a survey found that 69 percent of APA members still considered homosexuality "pathological." Nicolosi says, however, that this is a diagnosis that dares not speak its name.

"Though many mental-health professionals see homosexuality as a disorder," he said, "few are willing to say so publicly. It's not politically correct, and they would be harrassed, called bigoted and homophobic, and charged with inciting hatred."

Nicolosi contends that the APA's 1973 decision "was a political decision made under pressure from gay activists within the profession."

"It was an emotional appeal," he said. "The activists claimed that if we changed the diagnosis and said homosexuality was not a disorder, we would be contributing to alleviation of ostracism and discrimination. That maybe a good intention, but it's not good science — to change diagnosis for social and political purposes."

He points out, too, that subsequent decisions of the APA removed pedophilia, sadism and masochism from the "disorder" lists.

But Fitzgibbons is guardedly hopeful about the mental-health professions. "Regardless of the terms people use, more and more professionals are realizing the terrible downside of the homosexual lifestyle — the reckless sexual activity in the age of AIDS, the rampant promiscuity, the inability to sustain committed relationships, the much higher rates of suicide, drug addiction and depression," he said. "Most people can see that these are pathological behaviors. I think that more and more professionals are recognizing that homosexuality is a disorder."

NARTH's membership rolls lend credibility to Fitzgibbons' hunch. The organization, which is nonsectarian, now numbers 1,000 professionals. Nicolosi said that he has treated more than 400 men with homosexual attractions, and currently works with 35 per week.

More people can be helped, said Fitzgibbons, if more people "begin to call this by its name."

"It's not a fixed orientation," he told Our Sunday Visitor, "and it's certainly not a preference. In all my years of clinical work, I've never met a person whose preference was to switch from heterosexual to homosexual attractions. And, for many people, homosexual activity becomes a sexual addiction, which effectively removes any choice."

The term Fitzgibbons prefers is telling: "same-sex-attraction disorder," or SSAD. "It was coined by a mother whose son was lost in the lifestyle. SSAD fits, because we're talking about a lifestyle that calls itself 'gay,' but is characterized by overwhelming sadness."