The Christmas Truce of 1914

Here’s a timely recollection of a special Christmas event and “a beautiful moment in history” that’s seldom remembered: the soldiers’ truce of Christmas, 1914.

___________________________________

The Soldiers’ Truce
A Review of Stanley Weintraub’s book, Silent Night:
The Story of the World War I Christmas Truce
By Phil Shannon
Green Left Weekly
February 13, 2002

It was the war that was supposed “to be over by Christmas.” It very nearly was. A spontaneous soldiers’ truce broke out along the Western Front on Christmas Eve 1914, four months after the start of hostilities.

“Peace on Earth,” “goodwill to all men” — British, French and German soldiers took these usually hypocritical Christmas sentiments for real and refused to fire on the “enemy,” exchanging instead song, food, drink and gifts with each other in the battle-churned wastes of “no-man’s land” between the trenches.

Lasting until Boxing Day in some cases, the truce alarmed the military authorities who worked overtime to end the fraternization and restart the killing.

Stanley Weintraub’s haunting book on the “Christmas Truce” recounts through the letters of the soldiers the extraordinary event, routinely denigrated in orthodox military histories as “an aberration of no consequence,” but which was, argues Weintraub, not only a temporary respite from slaughter but an event which had the potential to topple death-dealing governments.

With hundreds of thousands of casualties since August from a war bogged down in the trenches and mud of France, soldiers of all countries were tired of fighting. There had already been some pre-Christmas truces to bury the dead rotting in “no-man’s land” but these truces had needed the approval of higher authority.

“Soon,” however, “few would care about higher authority” as an unauthorized and illegal truce “bubbled up from the ranks.”

The peace overtures generally began with song. From German trenches illuminated by brightly lit Christmas trees would come a rich baritone voice or an impromptu choir singing “Silent Night” (“Stille Nacht”). Other carols and songs floated back and forth over the barbed wire. A German boot tossed into the British trenches exploded with nothing more harmful than sausages and chocolates. Signs bearing “Merry Christmas” were hung over the trench parapets, followed by signs and shouts of “you no shoot, we no shoot.”

The shared Christmas rituals of carols and gifts eased the fear, suspicion and anxiety of initial contact as first a few unarmed soldiers, arms held above their heads, warily ventured out into the middle to be followed soon by dozens of others, armed only with schnapps, pudding, cigarettes and newspapers.

The extraordinary outbreak of peace swept along the entire front from the English Channel to the Switzerland border. Corporal John Ferguson, from the Scottish Seaforth Highlanders shared the pleasant disbelief — “Here we were laughing and chatting to men whom only a few hours before we were trying to kill.”

Uniform accessories (buttons, insignias, belts) were swapped as souvenirs. Christmas dinner was shared amongst the bomb craters. A Londoner in the 3rd Rifles had his hair cut by a Saxon who had been his barber in High Holborn. Helmets were swapped as mixed groups of soldiers posed for group photographs.

Some British soldiers were taken well behind German lines to a bombed farmhouse to share the champagne from its still intact cellar. Soccer matches were played in “no-man's land” with stretchers as goalposts. Bicycle races were held on bikes with no tyres found in the ruins of houses. A German soldier captivated hundreds with a display of juggling and magic. “You would have thought you were dreaming,” wrote captain F. D. Harris to his family in Liverpool.

The high command ordered the line command to stop the fraternization. Few line officers did or could. The truce momentum could not be arrested. Deliberate or accidental breaches of the tacit truce failed to undermine it. Stray shots were resolved by an apology. If ordered to shoot at unarmed soldiers, soldiers aimed deliberately high.

Sergeant Lange of the XIX Saxon Corps recounted how, when ordered on Boxing Day to fire on the 1st Hampshires, they did so, “spending that day and the next wasting ammunition in trying to shoot the stars down from the sky”. By firing in the air, as the sergeant noted with approval, they had “struck”, like the class-conscious workers they were in civilian life. They had had enough of killing.


Military authorities feared fraternization — a court-martial offence, punishable by death, it weakens “the will to kill”, “destroys the offensive spirit”, saps “ideological fervor” and “undermines the sacrificial spirit” necessary to wage war. It was politically subversive — “A bas la guerre!” (“Down with the war!”) from a French soldier was returned with “Nie wieder Kreig! Das walte Gott!” (“No more war! It’s what God wants!”) from his Bavarian counterpart.

After “mucking-in” with British soldiers, a German private wrote that “never was I as keenly aware of the insanity of war.”

Soldiers reasserted their shared humanity — Private Rupert Frey of the Bavarian 16th Regiment wrote after fraternizing with the English that “normally we only knew of their presence when they sent us their iron greetings.”

“Now”, we gathered, “as if we were friends, as if we were brothers. Well, were we not, after all!”

If ordinary soldiers acted on these sentiments, a big danger loomed for governments and the ruling class. If left to themselves, the soldiers would have been home from the shooting war by Christmas all fired up for the class war at home. As Weintraub says, “many troops had discovered through the truce that the enemy, despite the best efforts of propagandists, were not monsters. Each side had encountered men much like themselves, drawn from the same walks of life — and led, alas by professionals who saw the world through different lenses.”

Even Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the Sherlock Holmes creator, who had turned from jingoistic imperialism to spiritualism after the death of his son in the war, shot an angry glance to military and civil authority — “those high-born conspirators against the peace of the world, who in their mad ambition had hounded men on to take each other by the throat rather than by the hand.”

The high command on both sides were desperate to restart “the war that had strangely vanished”. Replacement troops with no emotional commitment to the truce were rushed in. The 2nd Welsh Fusiliers who had not fired a shot from Christmas Eve to Boxing Day were relieved without notice, an exceptional practice. Sometimes threats were necessary — when German officers ordered a regiment in the XIX Saxon Corps to start firing and were met with replies of “we can't — they are good fellows,” the officers replied “Fire, or we do — and not at the enemy!”

To prevent further spontaneous truces after 1914, the British high command ordered slow, continuous artillery barrages, trench raids and mortar bombardments — immensely costly of lives but effectively limiting the opportunities for fraternization for the rest of the war. To discourage others, conspicuous disciplinary examples were made of individuals. For organizing a cease-fire to bury the dead, which was followed by half an hour of fraternization in “no-man’s land” with no shooting for the rest of Christmas Day 1915, Captain Iain Colquhoun of the 1st Scots Guard was court-martialed. Merely reprimanded, the message was nevertheless clear for career-minded British officers.

Tougher medicine was needed when French soldiers refused to return to the trenches at Aisne in May 1917 — 3427 courts-martial and 554 death sentences with 53 executed by firing squad were necessary to crank-start the war on this sector of the French front.

Repression from above won the day against the Christmas Truce of 1914 but it was the lack of soldiers’ organization from below that stifled the potential for turning the truce into a movement to stop the war.

Weintraub has resurrected a beautiful moment in history, made all the more beautiful in the darkness of the carnage that was to follow when four more years of war took the lives of 6000 men a day. Far from a “two-day wonder,” the Christmas truce “evokes a stubborn humanity within us.” As folksinger John McCutcheon put it in his 1980s ballad Christmas in the Trenches, the war monster is a vulnerable beast when the common soldier realizes that “on each end of the rifle we're the same.”


Recommended Off-site Links:
Soldiers Against War: The Story of the World War One Christmas Truce by John V. Denson.
The Truce of Christmas, 1914 by Thomas Vinciguerra (New York Times, December 25, 2005).

For information about Joyeux Noël, the acclaimed 2005 film about the Christmas Truce, click here.

Clarity and Hope

He has visited and redeemed his people
. . . that we might serve him without fear . . . to give light
to those who sit in darkness . . . to guide our feet
into the way of peace.

Luke 1:68, 73, 79

As I mentioned in a previous post, I’m using a booklet produced by the Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet, entitled Winter’s Wisdom, as my Advent “guide” this year.

Today, being Christmas Eve, I thought I’d share the following from Winter’s Wisdom. It’s the reflection for December 24 and is written by Rose McLarney, CSJ, of St. Louis, Missouri.

Promises of Joy and Peace? But there is still oppression of peoples and nations going on in our world! Just as Mary pondered how she could be pregnant, so we may ponder how we can be Joyful and live in Peace in the midst of hardship and heartache. For me, the key words are “to give light to those who sit in darkness.” God enters our world to give light and to give Hope. When there is darkness we aren’t able to see what is before us. If I live in Hope, I live trusting that there is Goodness and Light even when I can’t see it. I live each day, looking for the presence and Goodness of God whether in be in happy events or in the struggles. God has visited us to guide us into the way of Peace.

I understand “light” in this context to mean awareness or, better still, clarity. I remember interviewing “modern-day mystic” Chuck Lofy for CPCSM’s Rainbow Spirit journal in 2005, and resonating with his understanding of clarity:

I think clarity is the great gift. It means to be clear, aware of one’s thoughts and actions. Clarity comes from knowing what the facts are, doing your own inner reflection, and dialoguing with others – including those who can help you get to your unconscious resistance. This is what I call the process of clarification, and it comes with a moral imperative. When I come to clarity, there’s such a realization of the calling of my deepest spiritual stirrings that I would be sinning against myself if I didn’t go with what’s become clear to me. Now, what motivates this process? It can be called by many names – the Divine, the Spirit Within, the Self, God. I like calling it the Universe.

And I like calling it the Christos, Christ, God’s eternal spirit of consciousness and compassion.

Whatever you call it, and however you understand it present in your life, may you be open to embodying it and sharing it with the world.

And may it bring you, and those around you, great joy, peace, and courage - and, yes, clarity and hope - in these often dark and difficult days.

Peace and Happy Christmas!


Image: “The Nativity” by Federico Fiori Barocci (1597).

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Advent Thoughts
My Advent Prayer for the Church
Thomas Merton on “the Advent Mystery”
The Centered Life as an Advent Life
A Christmas Reflection by James Carroll
What We Can Learn from the Story of the Magi
An Australian Christmas

Roman Catholicism’s “Popularity” in Britain

While surfing the internet earlier this evening, the following headline caught my eye: “Catholicism Now Britain’s ‘Most Popular’ Faith”. Of course, as is often the case, this particular headline doesn’t do justice to the complexity of the actual story.

Also, by bringing into the mix the recent conversion to Roman Catholicism of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the article, at first glance, seems to imply that Catholicism has become Britain’s “most popular faith” as the result of an increase in converts.

Well, sorry to disappoint the Uncle Vinces of the Roman Catholic family, but that’s not the reason for Catholicism’s “popularity” - a popularity ascertained, reports the article, by comparing the number of Anglicans and Roman Catholics who attend church on Sundays!

Such a suspect measure of “popularity” hardly warrants the gloating declaration of one Uncle Vince-like blogger, who writes: “This means that the established Church [of England] has lost its place as the nation’s most popular Christian denomination after more than four centuries of unrivalled influence following the Reformation.”

Yes, well, popularity is one thing, Uncle Vince, influence is quite another.

To get a broader perspective, check out the excerpts below. (And have you ever heard of the term “poped”? I haven’t. Oh, and I do appreciate the perspective of Richard Harries at the conclusion of the article.)

A survey by the group Christian Research published in the Sunday Telegraph newspaper show[s] that around 862,000 worshippers attended [Roman] Catholic services each week in 2006 exceeding the 852,000 who went to the Church of England.

The release of the figures followed news that former prime minister Tony Blair, who was raised an Anglican, had converted to [Roman] Catholicism, joining his wife and four children who are devout Catholics.

While attendance figures for both Catholic and Anglican services are declining, Catholic numbers are slipping by less as new migrants arrive from east Europe and parts of Africa, boosting Catholic congregations.

Catholic leaders were buoyed by the figures, and Blair’s high-profile conversion, seeing a resurgence of Catholic popularity in a country which once spurned the religion.

“When a former prime minister becomes a Catholic, that must be a sign that Catholicism really has come in from the cold in this country,” Catherine Pepinster, the editor of Catholic weekly The Tablet, wrote in the Sunday Telegraph. “I would hope that my fellow Catholics will welcome Tony Blair into the Church as they welcome other converts.”

Blair, now a Middle East peace envoy, is not the first high-profile Briton to convert to Catholicism.

The author Evelyn Waugh, the son of an Anglican churchman, converted in the 1930s, and novelist Graham Greene was a noted convert, although his books often explored doubts over faith.

Blair’s conversion was long expected but it has not come without a degree of criticism.

While in office, he frequently championed stem-cell research, was in support of civil partnerships for gay couples and has voted in favor of abortion, all issues on which the Catholic faithful hold strong [and, let’s face it, wide-ranging] positions.

Politicians, including some who have converted themselves, didn't question the sincerity of the conversion, made in a private ceremony on Friday, but wondered what it said about the stances he had taken on issues while in office.

Mostly though, the reaction was muted.

“In the 19th century when someone ‘poped’ it caused great scandal,” wrote the Right Reverend Richard Harries, a former bishop of Oxford, in the Observer newspaper. “But in recent decades a fundamental shift has taken place . . . If someone shifts their allegiance, well, as Jesus said, ‘there are many dwelling places in my father’s house’.”

Image: Pope Benedict XVI poses with then British Prime Minister Tony Blair(R) during their private audience at the Vatican in June 2007. Blair has become a Roman Catholic, church officials said Saturday, ending widespread speculation that he would switch to the faith of his wife and four children. (AFP/OR-HO/File)

Recommended Off-site Link:
Europe and the Failure of Orthodox Christianity

The Real Fascist Threat in Europe

And, no, it’s not Islamofascism

Ever noticed how a lot of so-called traditionalist Roman Catholic weblogs readily foment fear and hysteria over “Islamofascism”? A key element of such rants is the citing of Europe as the breeding ground for this particular form of fundamentalism.

Now, blame my highly developed “bullshit detector” (growing up gay within Roman Catholicism can have its advantages!), but I’ve never been taken in by this particular type of fear-mongering. And, according to author Gary Younge, you shouldn’t either.

In fact, in his December 21 article in The Nation, Younge reports that: “The most potent anti-Semites and bigots in Europe do not live in run-down housing projects but grace the corridors of power. They are not Muslim; they are Christian.”

Following is the full text of Younge’s insightful, though disturbing, article.

_______________________________________

In Europe, Where’s the Hate?
By Gary Younge
The Nation
December 21, 2007

Over the past year or so the rural Italian idyll of Colle di Val d’Elsa has played host to a bitter battle for Enlightenment values. On one side, the hamlet’s small Muslim community has raised a considerable amount of money to build a large mosque. Having gained the mayor’s approval, the Muslims signed a declaration of cooperation with the town hall and even planted a Christmas tree at the site as a good-will gesture.

In response, other locals pelted them with sausages and dumped a severed pig’s head at the site. On a wall near the site vandals daubed: “No Mosque,” “Christian Hill” and “Thanks to the communists the Arabs are in our house!!!”

Such is the central dynamic in European race relations at present. It is probably not the dynamic you have heard most about. The most popular one making the rounds this side of the Atlantic involves hordes of Muslims, rabid with anti-Semitic and misogynistic views, running amok as they bomb, bully and outbreed their clueless liberal hosts in a bid to build a caliphate.

“Do you have a child back in England?” an elderly Los Angelena asked a British reporter on a recent National Review cruise.

“No,” he said.

“You’d better start,” she replied. “The Muslims are breeding. Soon, they’ll have the whole of Europe.”

Nor is it by any means the only dynamic. There are a handful of nihilistic young Muslims keen to bomb and destroy and a far larger number sufficiently disaffected that they are prepared to riot. There are also many Europeans keen to see equality and meaningful integration, defending civil liberties and opposing wars against predominantly Muslim lands.

But the primary threat to democracy in Europe is not “Islamofascism” – that clunking, thuggish phrase that keeps lashing out in the hope that it will one day strike a meaning – but plain old fascism. The kind whereby mostly white Europeans take to the streets to terrorize minorities in the name of racial, cultural or religious superiority.

For fascism – and the xenophobic, racist and nationalistic elements that are its most vile manifestations – has returned as a mainstream ideology in Europe. Its advocates not only run in elections but win them. They control local councils and sit in parliaments. In Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France and Italy, hard-right nationalist and anti-immigrant parties regularly receive more than 10 percent of the vote. In Norway it is 22 percent; in Switzerland, 29 percent. In Italy and Austria they have been in government; in Switzerland, where the anti-immigrant Swiss People’s Party is the largest party, they still are.

This is not new. From Austria to Antwerp, Italy to France, fascists have been performing well at the polls for more than a decade. Nor are they shy about their bigotry. France’s Jean-Marie Le Pen has described the Nazi gas chambers as a “detail of history”; Austria’s Jörg Haider once thanked a group of Austrian World War II veterans, including former SS officers, for “stick[ing] to their convictions despite the greatest opposition.” But the attacks of 9/11, the bombings in Spain and Britain and the riots in France gave the hard right new traction. The polarizing effects of terrorism facilitated the journey of hard-right agendas from the margins to the mainstream. Islamophobia became de rigueur. Recently German Chancellor Angela Merkel told a Christian Democrat party congress that “we must take care that mosque cupolas are not built demonstratively higher than church steeples.”

In September 2006, British novelist Martin Amis told the Times of London: “There’s a definite urge – don’t you have it? – to say, ‘the Muslim community will have to suffer until it gets its house in order.’ What sort of suffering? Not letting them travel. Deportation – further down the road. Curtailing of freedoms. Strip-searching people who look like they’re from the Middle East or from Pakistan…. Discriminatory stuff, until it hurts the whole community and they start getting tough with their children.”

Far from being the principal purveyors of racial animus in Europe, Muslims are its principal targets. Between 2000 and 2005 officially reported racist violence rose 71 percent in Denmark, 34 percent in France and 21 percent in Ireland. With few governments collecting data on racial crime victims, it has been left to NGOs to record the sharp rise in attacks on Muslims, those believed to be Muslims and Muslim targets.

None of this means anti-Semitism and jihadism don’t exist among Muslim communities in Europe. But it does provide a context for both. Muslims are a relatively tiny percentage of European citizens – there is a higher proportion of Asians in Utah than Muslims in Italy – and are overwhelmingly concentrated among the poor. More than 40 percent of Bangladeshi men in Britain under the age of 25 are unemployed. All of this excuses nothing but explains a great deal. According to a Pew Research Center survey, the principal concerns of Muslims in France, Germany and Spain are unemployment and Islamic extremism. Integrating into a society that won’t employ you, educate you or house you adequately is no easy feat. Participating in a political culture that scapegoats you is also tough. Attacked as Muslims at home and abroad, they defend themselves as Muslims. Every respected report in Britain has shown a direct link between the war in Iraq and recruitment to Islamist movements. And so the symbiosis of Islamophobes and Islamists is complete, with each thriving on polarization and prejudice: picking at scabs that might have healed, until the blood runs freely.

The most potent anti-Semites and bigots in Europe do not live in run-down housing projects but grace the corridors of power. They are not Muslim; they are Christian. The continent is not suffering from some new strain of bigotry imported from the Arab world or the Maghreb – it is simply suffering from one of its oldest viruses harbored among its most established ethnic populations.

Gary Younge is the author of No Place Like Home: A Black Briton’s Journey Through the Deep South (University Press of Mississippi, 2002) and Stranger in a Strange Land: Travels in the Disunited States (New Press, 2006).


Recommended Off-site Links:
Muslims Taking Over Europe - Muhammad Idrees Ahmad.
The “Eurabia” Myth - Ralph Peters (New York Post, November 26, 2006).

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
A Dangerous Medieval Conviction
Reflections on the Overlooked Children of Men
An Unholy Alliance in Iraq
John Le Carré’s Dark Suspicions

Hans Küng: Still Speaking from the Heart of the Church

Now here’s some exciting news: the second volume of Hans Küng’s autobiography has recently been published – though, from what I can gather, I may have to wait awhile before I can read it, as an English translation is still forthcoming.

Never fear, the always informed and erudite Joseph O’Leary has written a compelling review of the German edition.

Following are excerpts from Joseph’s review:

The second volume of Hans Küng’s autobiography (“Umstrittene Wahrheit: Erinnerungen,” Munich, Piper, 2007) is an “Apologia pro Vita Sua” worthy of comparison with Newman’s. It covers the years from 1967 to 1980, and reveals in great detail and clarity exactly how the Second Vatican Council was betrayed by a Curia hostile to reform and, more crucially, by the cowardice and opportunism of a great number of bishops and theologians, willing to sign their own death warrant rather than challenge power and sacrifice worldly advancement. Had he dipped his pen in the acid of Zola or Flaubert, Küng’s panorama of mediocrity would have sizzled. He prefers to write plainly, sine ira et studio, and to emanate a forgiving and understanding benevolence on all.

As self-vindications go, the result is an astonishing success. The very many laity and clergy who have imbibed prejudice against Küng will certainly be obliged to modify their perceptions if they read this book. In it, a simple man addresses us honestly and calmly over hundreds of pages, never raising his voice, but quietly insisting on the integrity of his testimony. He shows that what irritated the authorities was not any alleged heresy but the ‘tone and style’ of his public persona, his willingness to speak openly to the media and to criticize the betrayal of the Council, and his unwillingness to present himself before the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in view of its refusal to reform itself as mandated by Paul VI in 1965 and its practice of judicial procedures incompatible with universally recognized norms of legality and justice.

. . . What, finally, was Küng’s intolerable offence? Simply this: that he took theology seriously, that he kept on nagging at it, that he raised the questions of truth and justice within the Catholic theological world. This single-minded passion upset a card-castle of bureaucratic custom and vested interests. Küng’s voice – so penetrating, so clear, and so deceptively simple (for its simplicity rests on the deepest theological foundations) – simply could not be tolerated. But Küng was never excommunicated, nor did he walk away. Thus it is that his voice is still heard, loud and clear, speaking from the heart of the Church. It is the voice of a sane and healthy man, totally unfazed by the decades of abuse he has received, calling us to come out of a neurotic and regressive period in church history and to advance with boldness toward the future that Vatican II glimpsed.

As executive coordinator of CPCSM, I facilitated, in the fall of 2005, a six-session program in which participants read and discussed Hans Küng’s The Catholic Church: A Short History. It’s a great, readily accessible book, and I highly recommend it.

I chose this particular book because, as I said at the time, I strongly believe that in order to understand and participate fully and credibly in the Roman Catholic Church of the present (including respectfully dialoguing, questioning, and, when necessary, critiquing), we need to understand the Church’s ongoing journey of development. And Küng’s book is the perfect resource for just such an understanding.

Here’s the brief biography of Küng that I used when announcing the book study group in the fall 2005 issue of CPCSM’s Rainbow Spirit journal:

Hans Küng obtained a doctorate in theology from Sorbonne in 1957. In 1962 he was named a theological consultant for the Second Vatican Council by Pope John XXIII, and he played a major role in the writing of the documents of Vatican II, which radically modernized key areas of Catholic theology. He is the author of numerous books, teaches in Tübingen, Germany, and founded the Institute for Ecumenical Research, of which he was director.

Although his permission to teach was withdrawn by the Church in 1979, Küng has remained unswervingly faithful to the Church in what he calls, “critical loyalty.” He remains professor of ecumenical theology and a Catholic priest in good standing. He has been on record as saying: “I affirm the papacy for the Catholic Church, but at the same time indefatigably call for a radical reform of it in accordance with the criterion of the gospel.”

Recommended Off-site Links:
He Could Have Been A Contender - An article on Hans Küng by Robert Blair Kaiser (National Catholic Reporter, January 6, 2006).
My Struggle for Freedom - The first volume of Hans Küng’s autobiography.

For more of Hans Küng at The Wild Reed, visit:
Casanova-inspired Reflections of Papal Power – at 30,000 Ft.

For other Catholic theologians highlighted at The Wild Reed, visit:
In the Garden of Spirituality: Uta Ranke-Heinemann
John Allen on the Censuring of Jon Sobrino
Paul Collins and Marilyn Hatton
“The Non-negotiables of Human Sex”– An Interview with Daniel Helminiak
In the Garden of Spirituality: Joan Timmerman
Mary Hunt and Our Catholic “Stonewall Moment”

See also the related Wild Reed posts:
Beyond Papalism
Thoughts on Authority and Fidelity
It’s Time We Evolved Beyond Theological Imperialism
“Uncle Vince” is at it Again
Beyond a PC Pope

Mmm, That Sweet Surrender

Friday nights are often “music night” here at The Wild Reed, and tonight for your listening (and viewing) pleasure I present, courtesy of YouTube, the video for the 1989 song “Sweet Surrender” by Scottish pop group, Wet Wet Wet.

“Sweet Surrender,” as sang by the band’s lead vocalist Marti Pellow, is a joyous celebration of vulnerability to love and the sweet and intoxicating sensation of surrendering to one’s beloved. Watching Marti perform this song never fails to bring a smile to my face. He looks so totally enraptured. Maybe he really was in love at the time!

Anyway, enjoy this delicious slice of eighties pop!

One look is all it took
to remember that sweet surrender.
I recall, do you,
that sweet surrender?

Yeah, all it took was one look, one glance
to set my heart for romance.
Do you believe my sweet,
my sweet surrender?

For more music on The Wild Reed, visit:
• The Wild Ones
• Saturday Night
• Engelbert Humperdinck: Not That Easy to Forget
• Yeah, Baby, Yeah!
• Rules and Regulations – Rufus Style
• The Man I Love
• Fleetwood Mac’s “Seven Wonders” – My Theme Song for 1987
• Crackerjack Man
• All at Sea
• The Beauty and Wisdom of Rosanne Cash
• Actually, I Do Feel Like Dancing
• “And A Pitcher to Go”
• Classic Dusty
• Soul Deep
• Wow!

The Centered Life as an Advent Life

Recently, I was at my friends Ken and Carol’s house where I came across an Advent reflection in a magazine dedicated to the spiritual life. This particular reflection was written by Mark S. Hanson, Bishop of the Evangelical Church in America, and focuses on the living of a centered life.

I always seem to come across interesting and insightful quotes and articles in my travels! Maybe it’s to do with the places to which I travel and the people I visit! Regardless, I often find myself scribbling down on scraps of paper the thoughts and insights of others that resonate with me and that, accordingly, I feel compelled to share with others - often via The Wild Reed.

So, here for your consideration are excerpts from Bishop Hanson’s reflection on the centered life as an Advent life.

A centered life acknowledges that life is a dramatic mixture of brokenness and grace. . . . A centered life is cruciform: daily holding in tension the call to honor and cultivate one’s deepest self and the command to die to one’s ego, to pick up the cross and follow Jesus into a word of suffering, death, and imbalance.

A centered life is an Advent life: not being so immersed in achieving balance in the present moment that we fail to get up on our tiptoes to lean expectantly into God’s prominent future – Christ Jesus. The central life is one of thanksgiving, awe, and wonder.

In a marvelous sermon titled, “Peace as Rest and Movement,” theologian Joseph Sitter wrote: “When the world is regarded as a succulent resource to be squeezed for its juice of joy, it turns out to be a thief, a liar, and a cheat. When the world is received as a gift . . . it can be rightly enjoyed and justly used. The peace of God as rest, whose gift is to have no anxiety about anything, fulfills itself in a peace of God as movement which goues out with holy concern about everything. The peace of God as rest in God’s acceptance of [humans] is not a knowledge that the world can deliver, is not in fact concerned with the world at all. But this sense of peace . . . matures to turn upon the world with a deep constructive joy, knows that the peaceless world is precisely the place for the working out of God’s will for truth, justice, purity, beauty. And therefore commands, ‘think about these things.’ ” (The Care of the Earth and Other University Sermons; Fortress Press, 1964).

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Advent Thoughts
My Advent Prayer for the Church
Thomas Merton on “the Advent Mystery”
Joy: The Most Infallible Sign of God’s Presence

Image: “Spiral Aloe” by Pei-Pei Ketron.

Celibacy and the Roman Catholic Priesthood

Along with other members of the editorial team of The Progressive Catholic Voice, I’ve recently been conducting research and interviewing priests (both current and former) about the issue of mandatory celibacy. In particular, we’re interested in ascertaining to what extent mandatory celibacy and the unacknowledged sexual lives of priests (gay and straight) prohibits and compromises them from being authentic pastors, prophets, and leaders within their communities. As you can imagine, it’s been a very interesting research assignment, with many heartfelt experiences and insights being shared by the priests we’ve interviewed.

Quite by chance I recently came across the following quote by New Ulm, Minnesota, priest, Jack Nordick. Because it’s relevant to the topic of celibacy in the Roman Catholic priesthood, I thought I’d share it on The Wild Reed (if for no other reason than that I’ll know where to find it when I and the other folks at The Progressive Catholic Voice get around to compiling and writing our article!)

(NOTE: Nordick wrote his piece in response to the “public scandal” that was caused to so-called traditionalists by the news that Catholic priest and EWTN’s Life on the Rock presenter, Fr. Mary Francis Stone, was considering leaving the priesthood to marry a woman.)

What we need to consider is that priests are as human as all the rest of you, and indeed subject to the same foibles. That means that celibacy is largely a myth, with perhaps no more that 15 percent of all priests actually maintaining celibacy throughout their entire careers. As Jesus himself noted, (Mathew 19; 8-12) celibacy is not something that can be imposed but is a gift given to few. Considering other life situations, one wonders why celibacy for priests matters so much.

As such, those of us who, at least up to now, have succeeded in keeping our promise of celibacy should not think of that as something we did on our own or a reason for greater honor. It is only a gift, and as all gifts, one that still needs to be cherished and honored. That doesn’t make me a prude, or perfect, or without sexual interest or reactions. Only that somehow, and not because of some greater will power, I have never found myself in a situation where I could not say no. I do not regard as inferior, those who responded to life’s urges in a different way.

[This is] considering the high sexual charge in our social environment; and the lack of concern for every kind of heterosexual dalliance; and the lack of reprimand for those bishops who had oversight for the passing around of known pedophile priests.

Our Church and our society have a long way to go before we can point fingers at priests who fall in love. But if we would deny communion to bishops who passed around pedophile priests, now that would be something.

And here’s Fr. Charles Ledderer’s thoughts on celibacy and the Roman Catholic priesthood, excerpted from his blogsite, On Guard Against the Catholic “Lunatic Fringe”.

. . . Time has a way of changing one’s perspective. Seeing good priests leave because they no longer want to “be alone,” hearing countless young men say they would definitely consider the priesthood “if they could marry,” and facing the prospect of being worked to death as the corps of priests shrink has caused my view to evolve over the past several years.

From what I see, many men feel quite isolated out there. The support of the parish community doesn’t necessarily alleviate the sense of loneliness. Certainly a deep prayer life is necessary (without that no one would last) but even very devoted, prayerful men sometimes “throw in the towel.”

Others try to deal with their loneliness in quite unhealthy ways. Alcohol is all too often abused. Some priests become obsessed with their “toys” and other material possessions. And celibacy in many instances isn’t being lived. It isn’t unusual for a man, be he gay or straight, to at some point fail in that department. Some have longterm, "secret" relationships. And in some parts of the world celibacy is a joke; it is regularly violated and officialdom just looks the other way.

I am not implying that there aren’t good men living celibate lives, fulfilled in their vocation. These would be the ones who have been authentically called to the celibate life by God. But there are many who, based on the evidence at least, appear not to have been truly called. [Hmm, called to what, I wonder? The priesthood or “the celibate life”? Must these be inseparable? History and experience clearly say no.]

My chief concern here is that things are quickly reaching a crisis stage. In many diocese a large “bubble” of priests is rapidly approaching retirement age. In a few years the Catholic landscape in many places is going to look startlingly different. And I can imagine a snowball effect; there could be guys who leave simply because they can't deal with the pressures that are going to placed upon them, further exacerbating an already bad situation.

I really believe the Church has to look honestly at this question.

Well, rest assured, Father, The Progressive Catholic Voice is on it!


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Thoughts on Celibacy (Part I)
Thoughts on Celibacy (Part II)
Vatican Stance on Gay Priests Signals Urgent Need for Renewal and Reform
Authentic Catholicism: The Antidote to Clericalism
Beyond Papalism
The Non-negotiables of Human Sex

Recommended Off-site Links:
Richard Sipe: Priests, Celibacy, and Sexuality
CORPUS

Recommended Books:
The Serpent and the Dove: Celibacy in Literature and Life by Richard Sipe.
Sex, Priests, and Secret Codes by Richard Sipe.
The Unhealed Wound: The Church and Human Sexuality by Eugene Kennedy.

Image: Montgomery Clift in the 1953 Alfred Hitchcock film, I Confess.

Thomas Merton on "the Advent Mystery"

The following quote by Thomas Merton appears in Dignity Twin Cities’ December 2007 newsletter. It’s excerpted from Merton’s 1950 book, Seasons of Celebration (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux Publishers).

It is important to remember the deep, in some ways anguished seriousness of Advent, when the mendacious celebrations of our marketing culture so easily harmonize with our tendency to regard Christmas, consciously or unconsciously, as a return to our innocence and our own infancy. But the church, in preparing us for the birth of a “great prophet,” a Savior, and a Prince of Peace, has more in mind than seasonal cheer. The Advent mystery focuses the light of faith upon the very meaning of life, history, humanity, the world, and our own being. In Advent, we celebrate the coming, and indeed the presence, of Christ in our world.

See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Advent Thoughts
My Advent Prayer for the Church

My Advent Prayer for the Church

The November-December 2007 issue of The Gay and Lesbian Review features an insightful interview with Ian McKellen, one of the greatest actors of our times.

The part of the interview that I especially appreciated was when McKellen talked about his experience of coming out as gay. Here’s what he said:

When I first came out – as anyone who has had to go through that journey will testify – life improved. You gain as a person your proper self-confidence. You’re being honest and you’re standing up as yourself and for yourself. For an actor, to have that confidence is an immense bonus. On top of that I freed up my emotions, or at least my ability to express emotions without being circumspect, without lying, without this disguise. Acting is about telling the truth rather than lying. I improved as an actor. Maybe that’s why my career went positively in every direction and flourished and continues to do so.

I resonate with McKellen’s experience of “improving” and “flourishing” as a result of coming out, and believe that this is the experience of the vast majority of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people.

What a pity such experience, such insight, such truth has been denied by the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church. Of course, some Catholics are fond of saying, “Well, it’s not me personally saying that homosexual acts are wrong, it’s the tradition.” That kind of response is a cop-out, of course, as it involves refusing to see that “the tradition” is inseparable from our openness to the sacred discerned in and through human experience.

Once we separate these two realities, however, all manner of weird thinking results: “Our teachings are the will of God! They are set in stone!” What!? And that stone just fell from the sky? As you can imagine, such thinking closes the door on any possibility of informed questioning, dialogue, and/or development of ideas. Mind you, one thing such thinking does do is absolve people from taking responsibility for the choices and decisions they make, both individually and collectively, and for the decisions that have been made on their behalf and in their name by so-called authorities - past and present.

Yet, when you think about it, is it any wonder that the tradition has said the same thing about the relationships of gay people? How can it say anything other if those who wield power within it continually refuse to take into account the experiences, insights, and truth of gay people’s lives and relationships?

Thus the claim of an unchanging and unchangeable tradition becomes self-fulfilling – not because of the will of God, but because of the stubbornness and pride of men. And since we’re talking about the Roman Catholic Church, I literally mean men (which, of course, is another part of the problem).

Yet in this Advent season, this season of hope, I’m nurturing the courage to stay hopeful.

I’m hopeful that God’s loving and guiding presence in the lives of LGBT people will and is slowly being heard, acknowledged, and accepted by more and more Catholics. The hierarchical Church’s position and language on this matter has become so extreme and lacking in common sense and compassion, that many people - gay and straight - are simply tuning it out, while others are letting their feelings be known.

For these reasons, and others, I remain hopeful – hopeful that the institutional Church will “come out” of its closet of denial and hubris and experience a beautiful renewal, a flourishing. And that folks like you and I will do our bit to encourage and facilitate such a long overdue coming out.

That’s my prayer for the Church this Advent. And I invite you to join with me in it.


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Advent Thoughts
Celebrating Our Sanctifying Truth
Truth Telling: The Greatest of Sins in a Dysfunctional Church
Trusting God’s Generous Invitation
Thoughts on Authority and Fidelity
Beyond Papalism
The Triumph of Love: An Easter Reflection
The Many Manifestations of God’s Loving Embrace
The Many Forms of Courage
And Love is Lord of All

Local Media Coverage of December 2 Vigil Falls Short

In my last post I shared the National Catholic Reporter’s coverage of the December 2 Vigil for Solidarity with LGBT Catholics that I and others helped organize.

Two local publications have recently reported on the vigil – City Pages and Lavender. Personally, I find the former’s coverage too flippant for my liking. And the caricature of Archbishop Nienstedt isn’t helpful. Then again, perhaps City Pages is simply reflecting the perspective of the general populace, the majority of which simply can’t take seriously the Catholic Church’s stance on homosexuality, and consider many of its authority figures closeted hypocrites.

The “open letter” that City Pages refers to was actually penned by the editorial team of The Progressive Catholic Voice, not just by me.

Anyway, following is City Pages’ coverage of the vigil. I’ll post Lavender’s report once it’s published next week. Despite the fact that Lavender considers itself “Minnesota’s GLBT magazine,” I doubt if it’s coverage will be much better. After all, it’s primary function seems to be to serve as a shopping catalogue for a certain type of gay man. I hope I’m proved wrong.

______________________

Archbishop Homophobe
Local Catholics protest John Nienstedt article
declaring gayness a “grave evil”

By Jeff Severns Guntzel
City Pages
December 12, 2007

Queer eyes are on the papal guy

More than 300 Catholics died on the snowy steps of the Cathedral of St. Paul last week.

The “die-in” was part of an organized protest of the new Archbishop in town: John Nienstedt. Last month the Archbishop declared his position on homosexuality in an article published in The Catholic Spirit. Here’s the abridged version: “grave evil.”

Responding to Nienstedt’s article in an open letter, Michael Bayly, editor of The Progressive Catholic Voice, wrote: “By the threat of sin, you have divided parents from children, family members and members of loving communities from each other.” Then, a question: “Is it a mortal sin if we support homosexual family members and friends?” And: “May we have them to dinner?”

The archbishop’s response was stoically indirect: “The teaching of the Catholic Church about God’s plan for human sexuality is the same today as it has been for centuries. It is not discriminatory.”

The corpses in front of the Cathedral, no doubt, rolled over in their graves.


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
• Archbishop Nienstedt’s “Learning Curve”: A Suggested Trajectory
• Interesting Times Ahead
• An Open Letter to Archbishop Nienstedt
• Nienstedt’s “Trauma of His Own”
• 300+ People Vigil at the Cathedral in Solidarity with LGBT Catholics
• Why We Gathered
• NCR’s Coverage of December 2 “Vigil for Solidarity”

NCR's Coverage of December 2 “Vigil for Solidarity”

The December 14 issue of the National Catholic Reporter includes coverage of the Vigil for Solidarity with LGBT Catholics that I, and others involved with The Progressive Catholic Voice, recently organized.

___________________


Hundreds Support Gay, Lesbian Catholics at Vigil

By Kris Berggren

National Catholic Reporter
December 14, 2007

At least 300 Catholics and supporters braved cold temperatures and gusty winds to gather outside the Cathedral of St. Paul Dec. 2 in a vigil of solidarity with gay and lesbian Catholics and their families.

The event included a “die-in” on cathedral steps and brief remarks by speakers including Mary Lynn Murphy, president of Catholic Rainbow Parents, and Mel White of SoulForce, a nonprofit activist organization that confronts homophobia by addressing religious bigotry.

White told the group they were the latest in a long line of dissenters such as Galileo and Franz Jägerstätter, “who loved the church enough to stand up and say, ‘You’re wrong.’ ”

The group also delivered an open letter to Coadjutor Archbishop John Nienstedt, who is to succeed Archbishop Harry Flynn as head of the archdiocese in the spring. The letter responded to Nienstedt’s Nov. 15 column in the archdiocesan newspaper, The Catholic Spirit. Nienstedt had written that people who support homosexual activity, such as parents who support their adult children’s gay or lesbian partnerships or family relationships, may be considered to “formally cooperate in a grave evil” or be “guilty of mortal sin.” He also distanced himself from the U.S. bishops’ pastoral letter to parents of gay children, “Always Our Children.” Nienstedt said that document “is not a normative teaching statement of the bishops’ conference.” [NOTE: As the Progressive Catholic Voice editorial team points out in its open letter, Archbishop Nienstedt’s statement on “Always Our Children” is misleading and erroneous.]

The open letter characterizes Nienstedt’s column as hurtful and unacceptable and derived from flawed research on human sexuality.

Michael Bayly of The Progressive Catholic Voice, a grass-roots group that organized the event, said they hoped to “show there are Catholics who disagree not only with what Nienstedt has said but how [the church] arrives at [its] teachings. We want a voice in the formulation of church teachings especially with regard to human sexuality. In Catholic tradition, the laity should have a role in developing teachings.”

Mary Turbak, a parishioner at St. Pascal Baylon, said she doesn’t have a gay or lesbian child but she was there to support friends. “We’re here because we’re against what Nienstedt said, that you’re living in sin if you’re supporting your children. Isn’t it the people in the church that matter, or is it a bunch of rules?”


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
• Archbishop Nienstedt’s “Learning Curve”: A Suggested Trajectory
• Interesting Times Ahead
• An Open Letter to Archbishop Nienstedt
• Nienstedt’s “Trauma of His Own”
• 300+ People Vigil at the Cathedral in Solidarity with LGBT Catholics
• Why We Gathered

Image: Kris Berggren.

What Scientists in the UK Are Saying About Homosexuality

In the United Kingdom, the Royal College of Psychiatrists (whose motto is: “Let wisdom guide”) has released a report on the origins of sexuality and the psychological and social well-being of lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people. The report was specially prepared for the Church of England’s “listening exercise” on the issue of homosexuality.

Wow! A mainline Christian church conducting a “listening exercise” with scientists (and, presumably, actual gay people) about the realities of homosexuality! I’m impressed. But then again, I’m Catholic, so I guess I’m easily impressed by such things since, tragically, even the idea of listening doesn’t seem to be on the radar of the Catholic leadership. After all, this is the same group of men who, in the U.S., failed to consult a single gay person when drawing up “guidelines” for ministry with “persons with a homosexual inclination.”

Yet for many Catholics, consultation and listening are exactly what is needed on a range of issues relating to human sexuality. I recall the comments made by internationally-renowned researcher and lifelong Catholic, Dr. Simon Rosser, during an interview I conducted with him in 2004 for CPCSM’s Rainbow Spirit journal:

Church teaching is at its most progressive when it engages in genuine dialogue, especially with experts and those most affected, to advance its theology. In turn, theology is like life – it’s liberating when it is healthy, challenging, and based in reality. . . . I think the first step is for the scientists and the bishops to sit down at the same table and talk.

Unfortunately, the only “scientists” that Catholic bishops (and, to my knowledge, one coadjutor archbishop) are willing to listen to are those quacks from NARTH. Oh, well, we live in hope.

Anyway, Episcopal Bishop John Selby Spong, shared the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ report on his website and introduced it with his own words of wisdom:

From time to time a report comes across my desk that is so important that I want to share it with my readers. That is the case with this report from the Royal College of Psychiatrists in the United Kingdom. It is not that their thought is new, it is that they have undertaken to report it systematically and with the full scholarship and authority of their offices.

When a prejudice is being debated there is a necessity for both sides of the debate to possess facts not just opinions. That is what is so often missing when religious people debate homosexuality. This report was issued because of the raging argument and dislocation going on in my church and in many others about homosexuality. The time has come for people to realize that pious homophobia is not a substitute for truth. The time has also come for Church leaders at every level to be confronted by competent scholarship, and for weak and fearful bishops, who believe that unity in ignorance is a legitimate goal for the Christian Church, to be told that it is not.

I commend this report to your study and hope that you will help to distribute it widely. For any part of the Christian Church to break apart over the use of outdated and thoroughly discredited ideas about homosexuality is a tragedy. For any part of the Christian Church to be as woefully uninformed on this subject as so many ecclesiastical leaders seem to be is a sign of incompetent leadership.

John Shelby Spong

Following is the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ report in its entirety. It’s long, but readily accessible to the lay person and well worth reading. (And thanks to my friend Paula for bringing it to my attention in the first place.)

____________________________________

Royal College of Psychiatrists
Submission to the Church of England’s
Listening Exercise on Human Sexuality

This report is prepared by a Special Interest Group in the Royal College of Psychiatrists. We have limited our comments to areas that pertain to the origins of sexuality and the psychological and social well being of lesbian, gay and bisexual people (LGB), which we believe will inform the Church of England’s listening exercise.


Introduction

The Royal College of Psychiatrists holds the view that LGB people should be regarded as valued members of society who have exactly similar rights and responsibilities as all other citizens. This includes equal access to health care, the rights and responsibilities involved in a civil partnership, the rights and responsibilities involved in procreating and bringing up children, freedom to practice a religion as a lay person or religious leader, freedom from harassment or discrimination in any sphere and a right to protection from therapies that are potentially damaging, particularly those that purport to change sexual orientation.

We shall address a number of issues that arise from our expertise in this area with the aim of informing the debate within the Church of England about homosexual people. These concern the history of the relationship between psychiatry and LGB people, determinants of sexual orientation, the mental health and well being of LGB people, their access to psychotherapy and the kinds of psychotherapy that can be harmful.


1. The history of psychiatry with LGB people

Opposition to homosexuality in Europe reached a peak in the nineteenth century. What had earlier been regarded as a vice, evolved into a perversion or psychological illness. Official sanction of homosexuality both as illness and (for men) a crime led to discrimination, inhumane treatments and shame, guilt and fear for gay men and lesbians (1). However, things began to change for the better some 30 years ago when in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association concluded there was no scientific evidence that homosexuality was a disorder and removed it from its diagnostic glossary of mental disorders. The International Classification of Diseases of the World Health Organization followed suit in 1992. This unfortunate history demonstrates how marginalization of a group of people who have a particular personality feature (in this case homosexuality) can lead to harmful medical practice and a basis for discrimination in society.


2. The origins of homosexuality

Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation (2). It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors (3) and the early uterine environment (4). Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice, though sexual behavior clearly is. Thus LGB people have exactly the same rights and responsibilities concerning the expression of their sexuality as heterosexual people. However, until the beginning of more liberal social attitudes to homosexuality in the past two decades, prejudice and discrimination against homosexuality induced considerable embarrassment and shame in many LGB people and did little to encourage them to lead sex lives that are respectful of themselves and others. We return to the stability of LGB partnerships below.


3. Psychological and social well being of LGB people

There is now a large body of research evidence that indicates that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment. However, the experiences of discrimination in society and possible rejection by friends, families and others, such as employers, means that some LGB people experience a greater than expected prevalence of mental health and substance misuse problems (5, 6). Although there have been claims by conservative political groups in the USA that this higher prevalence of mental health difficulties is confirmation that homosexuality is itself a mental disorder, there is no evidence whatever to substantiate such a claim (7).


4. Stability of gay and lesbian relationships

There appears to be considerable variability in the quality and durability of same-sex, cohabiting relationships (8, 9). A large part of the instability in gay and lesbian partnerships arises from lack of support within society, the church or the family for such relationships. Since the introduction of the first civil partnership law in 1989 in Denmark, legal recognition of same-sex relationships has been debated around the world. Civil partnership agreements were conceived out of a concern that same-sex couples have no protection in law in circumstances of death or break-up of the relationship. There is already good evidence that marriage confers health benefits on heterosexual men and women (10, 11) and similar benefits could accrue from same-sex civil unions. Legal and social recognition of same-sex relationships is likely to reduce discrimination, increase the stability of same sex relationships and lead to better physical and mental health for gay and lesbian people. It is difficult to understand opposition to civil partnerships for a group of socially marginalized people who cannot marry and who as a consequence may experience more unstable partnerships. It cannot offer a threat to the stability of heterosexual marriage. Legal recognition of civil partnerships seems likely to stabilize same-sex relationships, create a focus for celebration with families and friends and provide vital protection at time of dissolution (12). Gay men and lesbians’ vulnerability to mental disorders may diminish in societies that recognize their relationships as valuable and become more accepting of them as respected members of society who might meet prospective partners at places of work and in other such settings that are taken for granted by heterosexual people.


5. Psychotherapy and reparative therapy for LGB people

The British Association for Counseling and Psychotherapy recently commissioned a systematic review of the world’s literature on LGB people’s experiences with psychotherapy (13). This evidence shows that LGB people are open to seeking help for mental health problems. However, they may be misunderstood by therapists who regard their homosexuality as the root cause of any presenting problem such as depression or anxiety. Unfortunately, therapists who behave in this way are likely to cause considerable distress. A small minority of therapists will even go so far as to attempt to change their client’s sexual orientation (14). This can be deeply damaging. Although there is now a number of therapists and organization in the USA and in the UK that claim that therapy can help homosexuals to become heterosexual, there is no evidence that such change is possible. The best evidence for efficacy of any treatment comes from randomized clinical trials and no such trial has been carried out in this field. There are however at least two studies that have followed up LGB people who have undergone therapy with the aim of becoming heterosexual. Neither attempted to assess the patients before receiving therapy and both relied on the subjective accounts of people, who were asked to volunteer by the therapy organizations themselves (15) or who were recruited via the Internet (16). The first study claimed that change was possible for a small minority (13%) of LGB people, most of whom could be regarded as bisexual at the outset of therapy (15). The second showed little effect as well as considerable harm (16). Meanwhile, we know from historical evidence that treatments to change sexual orientation that were common in the 1960s and 1970s were very damaging to those patients who underwent them and affected no change in their sexual orientation (1, 17, 18).


Conclusions

In conclusion the evidence would suggest that there is no scientific or rational reason for treating LGB people any differently to their heterosexual counterparts. People are happiest and are likely to reach their potential when they are able to integrate the various aspects of the self as fully as possible (19). Socially inclusive, non-judgmental attitudes to LGB people who attend places of worship or who are religious leaders themselves will have positive consequences for LGB people as well as for the wider society in which they live.


Professor Michael King

Report prepared by the Special Interest Group in Gay and Lesbian Mental Health of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. 31st October 2007.


Reference List

(1) King M, Bartlett A. “British Psychiatry and Homosexuality.” British Journal of Psychiatry, August 1999; 175:106-13.
(2) Bell AP, Weinberg MS. Homosexualities : A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women. New York: Simon and Schuster; 1978.
(3) Mustanski BS, DuPree MG, Nievergelt CM, Bocklandt S, Schork NJ, Hamer DH. “A Genomewide Scan of Male Sexual Orientation.” Human Genetics; March 17, 2005;116(4):272-8.
(4) Blanchard R, Cantor JM, Bogaert AF, Breedlove SM, Ellis L. Interaction of Fraternal Birth Order and Handedness in the Development of Male Homosexuality.” Hormones and Behavior; March 2006; 49(3):405-14.
(5) King M, McKeown E, Warner J et al. Mental Health and Quality of Life of Gay Men and Lesbians in England and Wales: Controlled, Cross-Sectional Study. British Journal of Psychiatry; December 2003; 183:552-8.
(6) Gilman SE, Cochran SD, Mays VM, Hughes M, Ostrow D, Kessler RC. “Risk of Psychiatric Disorders Among Individuals Reporting Same-Sex Sexual Partners in the National Comorbidity Survey.” American Journal of Public Health, June 2001; 91(6):933-9.
(7) Bailey JM. “Homosexuality and Mental Illness.” Arch Gen Psychiatry; October 1999; 56(10):883-4.
(8) Mays VM, Cochran SD. “Mental Health Correlates of Perceived Discrimination Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adults in the United States.” American Journal of Public Health; November 2001; 91(11):1869-76.
(9) McWhirter DP, Mattison AM. “Male Couples.” In: Cabaj R, Stein TS, editors. Textbook of Homosexuality and Mental Health. Washington: American Psychiatric Press; 1996.
(10) Kiecolt-Glaser JK, Newton TL. Marriage and Health: His and Hers. Psychological Bulletin, July 2001; 127(4):472-503.
(11) Johnson NJ, Backlund E, Sorlie PD, Loveless CA. “Marital Status and Mortality: The National Longitudinal Mortality Study.” Ann Epidemiol; May 2000;10(4):224-38.
(12) King M, Bartlett A. “What Same Sex Civil Partnerships May Mean for Health. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health; March 1, 2006;60(3):188-91.
(13) King M, Semlyen J, Killaspy H, Nazareth I, Osborn DP. A Systematic Review of Research on Counseling and Psychotherapy for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender People. Lutterworth: BACP; 2007.
(14) Bartlett A, King M, Phillips P. “Straight Talking: An Investigation of the Attitudes and Practice of Psychoanalysts and Psychotherapists in Relation to Gays and Lesbians.” British Journal Psychiatry; December 2001;179:545-9.
(15) Spitzer RL. “Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? 200 Participants Reporting a Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation.” Arch Sex Behav; October 2003; 32(5):403-17.
(16) Shidlo A, Schroeder M. “Changing Sexual Orientation: A Consumers’ Report.” Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 2002; 33:249-59.
(17) King M, Smith G, Bartlett A. “Treatments of Homosexuality in Britain Since the 1950s – An Oral History: The Experience of Professionals. BMJ, February 21, 2004;328(7437):429.
(18) Smith G, Bartlett A, King M. “Treatments of Homosexuality in Britain Since the 1950s – An Oral History: The Experience of Patients. BMJ; February 21, 2004; 328(7437):427.
(19) Haldeman DC. “Gay Rights, Patient Rights: The Implications of Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy.” Professional Psychology – Research & Practice 2002; 33(3):260-4. 1999 August;175:106-13.


See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
“Gaydar,” “Gendermaps,” and the “Fundamentally Social Purpose” of Homosexuality
When Quackery Goes Mainstream
Listen Up, Papa!