Monday, September 14, 2009

How to Teach Purity

By Richard Salbato

I was asked by many people to expand on my last Newsletter, Sins Against Purity Cause Wars. Father Bart believes we should start a movement within the Church on Purity and Dating. I love the idea, but personally I am a hermit and too involved with my own family to organize anything. I will, however, offer guidelines and suggestions for those teachers and priests who want to bring Purity and Virginity back to the Church. For over ten years now I have been writing Newsletters on Moral Theology because more people today go to Hell for sins against morals than any other reason. Some of those Newsletters are linked below.

I suppose the most controversial Newsletter I have ever written on Morals is one of the first I ever wrote. It was a result of people asking me why I did not get involved in the Right to Life Marches and Sit-ins that my friends were involved in. Quickly without even thinking I said, “Abortion is not the problem.” At the time I did not even know what I meant by that but I went home and wrote out the answer. That was 10 years ago. Today I tried to find it on my web site, but it disappeared so I re-posted it. Abortion is not the Problem

I’ll try to not repeat anything here that I have already written in the above document but these two Newsletters should be read together. In the Newsletter, Abortion is not the Problem, I make the point that dating is the mother of sins against the flesh in our times. I saw this in confession when I said that I promise to “avoid the mere occasion of sin”. I remembered the movie about Vincent Van Gogh when his friend said, “You paint to fast.” He snapped back: “You look to fast.”

Like most people when I saw that Padre Pio had separate confessions for men and women, even separate rooms, I though he was just a little too old fashioned. When I read that boys and girls never went to the same schools, I thought they were just old fashioned. When I learned about “going out parties”, I just thought they were old fashioned. When I learned about “finishing schools”, I just thought they were old fashioned. I watched old black and white movies from the 50s and 60s and saw that even when in love people never even touched, but thought how old fashioned that was. Perhaps I thought: “Maybe I am looking to fast.

Maybe people back then knew things we have forgotten. Maybe they were the smart ones and we are the stupid ones. Maybe I should investigate why they did what they did and why we do what we do. Maybe we are accepting as moral what is the root of immorality.

Lets look at the problem today of sex outside of marriage, homosexuality, the rise of divorces, the rise of people living together without marriage, the rise of pedophilia, the rise of abortions, and the lack of morals throughout society. Why has sex replaced love? Why is there a rise in frigidity among men and women?

Teaching Sexual Relationships

I teach my grandchildren, 13 years of age to 19 years of age, weekly religion classes. For adults I have structured classes but for teens I just answer questions. In this age bracket they want to know about relationships more than anything else. They want to live in the world but by God’s rules. This is hard. To understand how hard, you have to know the peer pressure and the need to be accepted. I had to first teach them what is natural to our nature and why it is good. God created what is natural for good reasons, but He also gave us the moral law that we might regulate what is natural. When you teach about sex, you must not make it a bad thing, because it is a wonderful and holy thing that God created.

I use the example of soil and dirt. Both are the same thing, but soil is in place used for what God intended. Dirt is soil out of place and not used for what God (nature) intended.

God created man to be attracted to women, and he starts this attraction at a very young age, 8 to 10 years old. Man does not know why but he just likes women. Women start younger because they mature much faster. A woman is sexually mature about 10 years sooner than man is. She is also more sexually aggressive. You are going to disagree with me right now, but I will explain this later.

God designed this in man and women because He said be fruitful and multiply. Even in the animal world it is almost emotionally and physically forced on animals to have sex for the continuation of the species. In the animal world we call this being “in heat” but we fail to see it in humans. We also fail to see the family structure of animals, birds and fish, and we think of family as a man made thing rather than something natural to our nature. When ever we violate what is natural to our nature, we end with a disoriented nature, a sick nature.

God designed woman to mature physically and mentally faster than man, because the nature of man is not so social or loving, whereas woman is both social and loving at an early age. It takes longer for man to mature and to even be able to support a family and wife. Because of this difference I advise both men and women to keep this ten year difference in mind when looking for a wife or husband.

In the old days a woman’s “coming out party” was about when she was 16 years of age. This is when the family invited all the young men to their home (with their parents) to show off their daughter, who was now of age to look for a husband. For the first time in her life she would dance with boys, in front of her parents. Before going to this Coming Out Party, she would go to Finishing School. In this school she would not learn language or math, but how to walk, how to act, how to greet people of different classes, how to eat, and in short, how to be a lady. Men also went to Finishing School but they did not call it that. They learned manors, a trade and manliness, even sometimes how to fight. The boys were also taught dancing and proper dress for different occasions.

Today the average age for women starting their period, and therefore their sexual yearning, is about 12 to 13 instead of 16 years. I think it is because of TV and the promotion of sex in everything we do. The brain affects the body and this exposure to sex causes people to mature physically too soon. I say too soon because mentally they are not ready. The balance of mental and physical maturity is disrupted.

Now I am going to say something that will surprise most people unless you think about it a great deal without looking too fast. Men do not really want sex before they are at least 17 or 18. They do not even want to make out or get too involved with girls other than keeping them company. Boys really want romance but not sex.

The reason we think this is crazy is that boys seem so aggressive today, but this aggressiveness is caused by peer pressure. Boys are made to think they are not men unless they have sex and even press for it. In truth even when pressured by other boys and even the girls, they are hoping the girl says, “No!” Sometimes a girl will even drop a boy who does not want sex. This is true today and common but not true in the past. Because of peer pressure and a lying promotion of open sex on TV, most girls think they are not loved unless the boy at least tries to have sex with them.

This is a huge problem for boys between 12 and 17 years of age because although they are capable of sex they are not ready for it mentally or physically. They feel like they have to do it but often this will cause problems in them that may last the rest of their lives. This might become a hidden dislike for women, or at least disrespect. This mental and physical difference in age of men and women sometimes produces homosexuality in men because they are threatened by women but do not know why. Unlike what you read, homosexuality in American is only ½ of one percent of the people and not 10% but they do not want to admit that they are mentally sick caused from some sexual trauma. This mental sickness borders on the demonic because it so violates nature. It often leads to pedophilia, because sex for nothing but personal satisfaction and not out of love ends up by hating all that is pure. It is even a way of showing hatred for God. The pedophile hates God and everything pure.

Female homosexuals have a different cause. They are not born that way as our “tolerant” society wants you to believe. A woman’s sexuality is more mental than physical and the physical is mostly external and not internal. A man can somewhat enjoy sex even with someone he does not like. But a woman must be somewhat romanced and treated kindly before she really enjoys sex. When she continually has unfulfilled sexual experiences over and over she turns to the person who understands female sexuality, another woman.

“My children might “make out” a little bit but they do not have sex.” This is what some parents say to me but it is bull crap. I have an easier time explaining what is wrong with this to children than I do to adults. Think about the soil and the dirt. God designed the human body perfectly. It get hungry when it is time to eat but it can be trained to only be hungry once a day, like in my case.

God wants married people to have sex because it is good and even wonderful. But their first has to be some stimulation that makes sex possible. God designed the human body in such a way that tender touching and kissing stimulates the body so that it is capable of sex. In the man it even causes the sperm to be generated so that birth is possible. In the woman it lubricates so that sex is possible. This can start by just holding hands.

This is good and even wonderful when two people are married. It is even sacramental and one of the greatest expressions of love there is. However, what happens then when two people stimulate their bodies for sex but then do not have it. The stimulation calms down a little but does not go away. It builds up in the same way that smelling good food over and over and not eating it effects the body. The next day the sexual drive still lingers and might manifest itself in many ways. If this continues it could produce aggressive behavior or even ways to escape the feelings through alcohol or drugs.

This must to be explained so that “making out” is not thought about as innocent or sinless. It is very sinful and is at the root of all sexual sins. This is why un-chaperoned dating is so wrong and the root of sexual sins, the main road to Hell.

Men are voyeurs, meaning that they can be sexually stimulated by visual things. God created man this way for the same reason he created women so beautiful. As the bible says, even the angels are tempted by the beauty of women. Since sexual stimulation without sex causes all kinds of root problems that are all sinful and even mentally harmful, it behooves women to be very careful how they dress or act. This does not mean not to dress for beauty but just not to dress provocatively. It also means that good men should understand that any visual sexual stimulation on TV or the printed media should be avoided for good mental health and good morals. Personally I do not understand why people would even want to watch two people kiss. These things are personal and not any more public than going to the bathroom.

What then is purity? Purity is not sexless although many sacrifice all sex for the Kingdom of God. Married people who have very active sexual lives can be very pure and even saintly. Many married people with lots of children have been canonized as saints. Purity is not dressing in sackcloth. Purity is not avoiding the opposite sex. Purity starts and stops in the brain. Purity is a mental attitude more than a physical compliance. One can do all the right things according to God’s will and law but without being pure of heart, you cannot be called pure.

When you want to obey all the laws of nature and the laws of God because it is the best way to be charitable to yourself, to others and to God, then you can be called pure of heart. This is what it means to love God and others with your heart and soul. Prudish, Victorian people are not pure, they are selfish. The pure of heart wants to give all to God and others using the gifts God gave for good.

This is not the time to talk about this because I want parents and children to read this, but just before marriage men and women should be taught that it is God’s will and the law of love to make sure that your loved one enjoys sex. This might seem obvious but it is a big problem in marriages and does not have to be. I do not think this should be taught until just before marriage because it can lead to sinful thoughts and acts if done too soon.

You would be surprised to know that in some societies in the Middle East and Africa they castrate women because they do not believe women should enjoy six. This is also a sin against nature and God, because God designed sex as an expression of love, joy and pleasure. It is a lack of love when someone does not care if the other does not have this joy and pleasure. I will not talk more on this, but those who want information on this can email me.

Our Lady of America calls all Americans to purity. Our Lady of Nicaragua predicts World War III. The two apparitions go hand in hand, because there will be a World War III and if America changes her ways regarding sex and abortion, we can escape the brunt of this war and even lead the world back to peace. The main recruiting tool of Radical Moslems is the moral corruption of the west. Let us take that tool out of their hands, and put God on our side. Let us also take the tool of justice out of God’s hand by ending the root cause of abortion, dating and free sex.

Stop un-chaperoned dating.

Richard Salbato



Dear Friends and Benefactors

"The debasement of noblest things is the worst." This famous apothegm is no more applicable than to matters of purity and impurity.

One of the most wide spread vices of our day and age is that of impurity. It is a vice so easy to fall into yet once it takes hold seems impossible to overcome. Part of the reason for this is that, as St. John Climacus says:

Our relentless enemy, the teacher of fornication, whispers that God is lenient and particularly merciful to this passion, since it is so very natural. Yet if we watch the wiles of the demons we will observe that after we have actually sinned they will affirm that God is a just and inexorable judge. They say one thing to lead us into sin, another thing to overwhelm us in despair.

Another reason why many are not victorious in battling this vice is that they do not value the opposing virtue of purity. They fail to realize that as there is no vice more loathsome and horrible than impurity, so the most charming and beautiful of all virtues is purity. But why is this so?

In the first place, purity is so highly valued because it is the crown of all other virtues. It presupposes the presence of many if not all other virtues. The pure of heart love prayer and have the virtue of piety. They must at all times consider their infirmity and pray for grace and strength thus practicing humility. They also love the virtues of penance, self-denial and charity and they must have the virtues of meekness, patience and zeal for the glory of God. They must also practice the virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity, in such a perfect manner that the other virtues find strength and support in them.

Another reason is that there is no virtue which demands greater sacrifice and more care than purity. St. Jerome calls this virtue a living martyrdom since it lasts for one’s entire life. We must guard not only one of our senses or faculties, but all of them. All of our senses and faculties are exposed to temptations against holy purity, and so we must keep them all under careful control. It is this constant watchfulness and self-denial which the Fathers of the Church regarded as a martyrdom.

Because of this self-denial, which purity demands, some may have the impression that the life of the pure is sad and gloomy; they are mistaken. The Garden of Paradise contained many trees but only one was forbidden to our first parents. The fruit they were allowed to eat was far more choice than that of the one forbidden to them. Because they chose to enjoy the forbidden fruit they were no longer able to enjoy the others. Likewise, the pure of heart know many more joys, pleasures and consolations that are withheld from those who give themselves up to impurity.

Purity is reflected in our bearing and character even though it be too subtle to analyze or explain. The pure young man or young woman will be of a happy mind having a cheerfulness that does not depend on the weather. Their eyes sparkle with a fire not of this world and they see beauty and charm where the sinful see only the commonplace. The mountains, trees and flowers, lawful gratification, labor and rest, all give to the pure a gratification of which the worldly minded have no idea. How much better it is to enjoy such peace and tranquility of mind, than to suffer the tortures of conscience living in fear that hidden sins will become known.

Nothing in all Creation is grander than the sight of a pure boy or girl growing up in all their strength and beauty of health, with an innocent look in their eyes. Purity ennobles and elevates our body, giving it a charm that is the delight of God and His angels. Even the wicked, who are unwilling to be pure themselves, are compelled to admire and respect purity in others.

Nor is it just the body of the pure that God in His infinite generosity adorns but He beautifies the soul far more. They that go to heaven upon the path of purity receive the choicest blessings and graces. Through these graces they receive warning beforehand of impending temptations and danger. Because of the greater and more pure love which purity gives they are able to undergo any sacrifice, even to suffer death, rather than forfeit the priceless jewel of purity.

Many saints were of the opinion that most people lose their salvation through impurity. If so, we may say that the virtue of purity is one of the safest marks of belonging to the elect. Our Savior has told us little about the joys and rewards of the world to come, but He did reveal that the pure will receive a special reward standing nearest to His Throne, where they will sing a song of praise that no one else will be able to sing.

Living in a world steeped in immodesty and impurity it may seem impossible to go unscathed. But we can preserve this precious jewel and pass through life unmarked if we rely on God’s grace and put forth the effort, following the example of the saints.

The saints were able to fight off temptation because they constantly lived in the presence of God. They had one thought uppermost in their minds —wherever they were, God was by their side. By constantly keeping God before their mind, they had the strength to suffer anything for love of Him and thus turned suffering into joy and trials into victories. When others were overwhelmed by even the smallest temptations because they had lost sight of God, the saints accepted and conquered even the fiercest assaults as a matter of course. The thought of God’s presence gave them strength, consolation, hope and happiness.

The saints were able to keep God before their minds because they lived in a spirit of prayer. They did not make the mistake of thinking prayer to be a merely formal affair; a few minutes set apart in a completely different atmosphere from the rest of their day. Rather they had the constant pious disposition to connect everything they did or saw with God. Every act became prayer for them. Every act of penance, self-denial and charity was nothing else than prayer. Their entire life was transformed into one constant prayer.

If sinners would go to Confession and Holy Communion as frequently and with the same zealous dispositions as the saints, they, too, would become saints. Generally speaking, however, those that need the Sacraments the most are the most negligent in receiving them.

Besides the presence of God, the saints also are shining examples of devotion to our Blessed Mother. True devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary is taken as a guarantee of eternal happiness. She does not fail to obtain favors and blessings for those who honor her. Hence it should not surprise us that her special admirers receive special benefits; as shown in the lives of the saints. Thus Mary can and will obtain for the children that love her most one of the greatest favors, the jewel and crown of all virtues.

The virtue of purity is, therefore, worth our every effort and its beauty cannot be over-rated. It is something so refined and heavenly that our weak human vision can scarcely grasp the greatness of its grandeur. We shall only fully appreciate it in heaven. But until then we must fight for it, and keep its beauty, as far as we can, before us.

Sincerely yours in the Precious Blood of Jesus,

Fr. John D. Fullerton

Why do the Leftists and Gay Culture’s Rejection of Objective Truth leads to Sexually Abusing Children?

By Fred Martinez

Professor Allan Bloom, author of "The Closing of the American Mind, " said that the only virtue 50 years of Nietzsche's influence on public education – and he could have said 30 years of Catholic education – has achieved is relativity of truth. Bloom said relativism "is the modern replacement for the inalienable natural rights that used to be the traditional ground for a free society."
The move away from objective truth leads to universal rights being replaced by Nietzsche's will to power. Bloom, for example, showed how the old civil rights movement "relied on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution." But the new Black Power movement considered the Constitution "corrupt" and demanded a "black identity, not universal rights. Not rights but power counted."
The liberal "Catholics" speak the jargon of the Catholic while following Nietzsche's will to power. They understand power and hold most of the power positions in the infrastructure of the American Church.
According to Catholic scholar James Hitchcock, the leftist "clerical homosexual network" extends to "bishops, seminary rectors, chancery officials, [and] superiors of religious orders."
The "real" Catholics, the ones not infected with relativism and will to power, not realizing that their opponents use words as ploys to attain power, still use logic in an attempt to reason them back into objective truth. So they control many publications, as well as the EWTN Cable Network, but they have power over only a few dioceses, colleges and high schools, where the real power is.
Meanwhile, the Nietzschean "Catholics" are going for the throat by going after the young. They control the American Catholic high school system, which is pro-homosexual, and filter out Roman Church documents such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Catechism states that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered ... [and] under no circumstances can they be approved."
That the Catholic schools are not teaching the Catechism of the Catholic Church is shown by recent polls which found that the vast majority of Catholic high school students are pro-gay. That is, they buy the whole gay agenda and even have gay clubs at their Catholic schools.
Norman Mailer, in his book "Prisoner of Sex," shows why this relativism and moving away from natural objective truths such as heterosexual sex can lead to will to power:
"So, yes, [homosexuals] in prison strive to become part of the male population, and indeed – it is the irony of homosexuality – try to take on the masculine powers of the man who enters them, even as the studs, if Genet is our accurate guide, become effeminate over the years. ... Homosexuality is not heterosexuality. There is no conception possible, no, no inner space, no damnable spongy pool of a womb ... no hint remains of the awe that a life in these circumstances can be conceived. Heterosexual sex with contraception is become by this logic a form of sexual currency closer to the homosexual than the heterosexual, a clearinghouse for power, a market for psychic power in which the stronger will use the weaker, and the female in the act, whether possessed of a vagina or phallus, will look to ingest or steal the masculine qualities of the dominator."
This is the end result when universal truths and responsibility toward those truths are denied. The only "currency" left to the left is stealing of power, because they are insecure in any truth including their own objective masculinity.
Unsure of their own objective masculinity – or any objective truth, for that matter – they will not tolerate truth, calling it intolerance. They will not tolerate the truth of the purpose of sex, which is married love, with the creation of a secure family for the children of that love.
Leftists replace the traditional family with sexual power struggles that lead to the death mills of the abortion industry and the graveyards of AIDS and the abandonment of children and women at the altar of free sex.
Sex is not free. It was once a responsibility that a mature man entered into for life, for the security of his beloved children and wife.
Likewise, liberals replace the Constitution with sex and ethnic power struggles that lead to the breaking of the rule of law. If a president can sexually abuse women and possibly even rape them, then obstruct justice and lie under oath, are we under the rule of law? If our society will not tolerate truth, then men and women are not secure in their "inalienable natural rights that used to be the traditional ground for a free society," as Bloom said.
If we reject the rule of law and natural rights, our society will progress toward the Clintonian power tactics of prison homosexuals. The leftists in the Church and the media rejecting objective truth no longer want to be identified as men of objective faith and reason, but rather as Nietzschean post-modernists to be identified with the "culture" of the gay and Clintonian playboy slogans of the media elite.
The media elite uses management tactics on anyone who wants to be identified as a man of objective morals, faith and reason. They redefine the meaning of words like morals, faith and reason through association and repetition, then isolate those who don't accept the new definitions, after which they ostracize the good name of any person or group that doesn't accept the new "culture" and isn't a "team player."
The very respected scholar Edgar H. Schein of MIT Sloan School of Management explains the process in "Organizational Learning as Cognitive Re-definition: Coercive Persuasion Revisited":
"It may seem absurd to the reader to draw an analogy between the coercive persuasion in political prisons and a new leader announcing that he or she is going 'to change the culture.'
"However, if the leader really means it, if the change will really affect fundamental assumptions and values, one can anticipate levels of anxiety and resistance quite comparable to those one would see in prisons. The coercive element is not as strong. More people will simply leave before they change their cognitive structures, but if they have a financial stake or a career investment in the organization, they face the same pressure to 'convert' that the prisoner did. ... Consider, for example, what it means to impose a 'culture of teamwork' based on 'openness and mutual trust' in an individualistic society."
By using this process, the leftists with the media's marketing ability learned they could create massive peer pressure – some would call it a "mob mentality," which changes the worldview of people with weak morals, weak faith or the Judas mentality. These types of people see themselves as the "elite" because they accept the "culture of teamwork" and have "openness" to the new definitions.
These persons wishing to be part of the "culture" or "team" are open to cognitive re-definition. Schein explains how the process works:
"'Cognitive redefinition' involved two different processes. First, concepts like crime and espionage had to be semantically redefined. Crime is an abstraction that can mean different things in different conceptual systems when one makes it concrete. Second, standards of judgment had to be altered. Even within the western concept of crime, what was previously regarded as trivial was now seen to be serious. The anchors by which judgments are made are shifted and the point of neutrality is moved. Behavior that was previously judged to be neutral or of no consequence became criminal, once the anchor of what was a minimum crime was shifted. These two processes, semantic re-definition and changing one's anchors for what is good or bad, acceptable or unacceptable, are the essence of cognitive re-definition."
Bloom thought that Nietzsche was the father of modern America culture. He said, "Words such as 'charisma,' 'lifestyle,' 'commitment,' 'identity,' and many others, all of which can easily be traced to Nietzsche ... are now practically American slang."
But the most important Nietzschean slang word is "values."
"Values" are the death of Christian morality because values simply mean opinions. If opinion is how things are decided, then might makes right.
One must remember that whenever someone talks about values in modern America – family values or religious values or place-the-blank-in-front-of values – they are saying there is no real or objective right or wrong – only opinions of the self and its will to power.
Nietzsche's philosophy is summed up by Bloom as
Commitment values the values and makes them valuable. Not love of truth but intellectual honesty characterizes the proper state of mind. Since there is no truth in the values, and what truth there is about life is not lovable, the hallmark of the authentic will is consulting one's oracle while facing up to what one is and what one experiences. Decisions, not, deliberations, are the movers of deeds. One cannot know or plan the future. One must will it.
As a philologist, Nietzsche believed there was no original text and transferred this belief to reality, which he thought was only pure chaos. He proposed will to power in which one imposes or "posits" one's values on a meaningless world.
Previous to Freud's psychoanalysis, Nietzsche's writings spoke of the unconscious and destructive side of the self. In fact, Freud wrote that Nietzsche "had a more penetrating knowledge of himself than any other man who ever lived or was likely to live."
Max Weber and Sigmund Freud are the two writers most responsible for Nietzschean language in America. Few know that Freud was " profoundly influenced by Nietzsche," according to Bloom. Freud, much more than Weber, profoundly changed America from a Christian culture to a therapeutic or self-centered culture.
The therapeutic approaches, which started with Freud, have a basic assumption that is not Christian. The starting point is not the Christian worldview, which is summed up in the parable of the prodigal son: a fallen and sinful world with persons needing God the Father to forgive them so they can return to be His sons and daughters.
Unlike the Christian worldview, the therapeutic starting point is that the individual must overcome personal unconscious forces, in Freud, and in Carl Jung the person must unite to the collective unconscious, which is shared by all humans.
In both cases, the therapist assists his client to change himself to 'become his real self.' Forgiveness and returning to God are not needed. What is needed are not God and His Forgiveness, but a therapist assisting a self to reach the fullness of its self.
Freud, under the influence of Nietzsche, moved psychiatry away from the mechanistic and biological to the previously "unscientific" model of the "symbolic language of the unconscious."
Freud's pupil Carl Jung took the symbolic language of the unconscious a step further. Unlike his mentor, Jung's unconscious theory is not just about making conscious sexually repressed or forgotten memories. His symbolic therapy used what he called the "active imagination" to incorporate split-off parts of the unconscious (complexes) into the conscious mind.
He believed with Freud that dreams and symbols are means to the unconscious, but for Jung the dream and symbol are not repressed lusts from stages of development. They are a way to unite with the collective unconsciousness.
Many Christians thought this "language of the soul" was a step forward from what they considered the cramped scientific reality of modernity. What they didn't understand was that Jung's theory was part of a movement that led to the rejection of objective morality and truth.
Jungian (and Freudian) psychoanalysis reduces Christian concepts such as God, free will and intelligence to blind reactions, unconscious urges and uncontrollable acts. Even more disastrous, Jung inverted Christian worship.
Leanne Payne, a Christian therapist, considers Jung "not a scientist, but a post-modernist subjectivist. Jung's active imagination therapy is hostile not only to the Judeo-Christian worldview, but to all systems containing objective moral and spiritual value. Within this world the unconscious urge becomes god. What the unconscious urge wants is what is finally right or moral. These psychic personae [complexes] are literally called 'gods' (archetypes),' and so an overt idolatry of self follows quickly."
Within the modern French Nietzschean schools of thought, a type of Jungian unconscious urge is replacing the old existential conscious self who chooses. The post-modernist is moving from the idolatry of self to the idolatry of autonomous inner "beings" that, according to Payne, are similar to pagan "gods."
As C.S. Lewis predicted in "The Screwtape Letters," we are moving to a "scientific" paganism. C.S. Lewis' name for the "scientific" pagan was the Materialist Magician and the name of the autonomous inner "beings" was the "Forces."
In "The Screwtape Letters," his character who is a senior evil spirit said:
I have high hopes that we shall learn in due time how to emotionalise and mythologise their science to such an extent that what is, in effect, belief in us (though not under that name) will creep in while the human mind remains closed to the Enemy [God]. The "Life Force," the worship of sex, and some aspects of Psychoanalysis may here prove useful. If once we can produce our prefect work – the Materialist Magician, the man, not using, but veritably worshipping, what he vaguely calls "Forces" while denying the existence of "spirits" – then the end of the war will be in sight.
Some of the largest audiences for this "scientific" paganism with its inversion of worship and the Judeo-Christian worldview are followers of Christ. By using Christian symbols and terminology, Jungian spirituality has infiltrated to a large extent Christian publishers, seminaries, even convents and monasteries.
Many Christians are using Jung's active imagination as a method of prayer. Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., thinks this is dangerous "because this fantasy life has no moral underpinnings, because it helps to reinforce an experience of autonomous inner 'beings' accessible via the imagination, and because it is a defense against redemptive suffering, it easily allies with and quickly becomes a Gnostic form of spiritually with powerfully occult overtones."
If one is under the influence of the autonomous inner "beings," uncontrollable urges can overpower the self. One can go temporarily or permanently insane. And in the Christian worldview, the autonomous inner "being" is not always just an imaginary being, but can be a personal being, which then makes possession a rare, but not impossible, occurrence.
In fact, according to one Jungian therapist, Nietzsche himself went insane permanently when an autonomous inner "being" (archetype) overpowered him. So, unfortunately with the widespread acceptance of Jungian spirituality, mainstream Christianity seems to be moving to post-modern Nietzschean insanity and possibly, in some cases, possession.
Jung's autobiography is full of insane or occult experiences. He was continually hearing 'voices.' In his autobiography he said his home was "... crammed full of spirits ... they were packed deep right up to the front door and the air was so thick it was scarcely possible to breathe."
During the Hitler regime, which itself was obsessed with the occult, Jung edited a Nazi psychotherapeutic journal where he said, "The 'Aryan' unconscious has a higher potential than the Jewish." Keep that word "potential" in your mind. It will be used by American psychology.
Once opinion is master, then might makes right. In "Beyond Good and Evil," Nietzsche proclaimed a new morality, "Master morality," which was different from Christian morality – or "slave morality," as he called it. He thought the weak have the morality of obedience and conformity to the master. Masters have a right to do whatever they want; since there is no God, everything is permissible.
In what Nietzsche considered his masterpiece, "Zarathustra," he said the new masters would replace the dead God. The masters were to be called Supermen, or the superior men.
After Freud and Jung came Alfred Adler, also a follower of Nietzsche, with "Individual psychology," which maintains that the individual strives for what he called "superiority" but now is called "self-realization" or "self-actualization," and which came from Nietzsche's ideas of striving and self-creation.
The "human potential movement" and humanistic psychology of Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers are imbedded with these types of ideas. The psychologists of "potential" teach the superior man.
Edvard Munch said:
Alfred Adler translated Nietzsche's philosophical idea of "will to power" into the psychological concept of self-actualization. Thus, Nietzschean thought forms the foundation for and permeates Alfred Adler's Individual Psychology, Abraham Maslow's Humanistic Biology, Carl Rogers's Person-Centered Psychology, and has influenced many other psychological ideas and systems. ... Alfred Adler was the first psychologist to borrow directly from Nietzsche, making numerous references to the philosopher throughout his works. Adler took Nietzsche's idea of "will to power" and transformed it into the psychological concept of self-actualization, in which an individual strives to realize his potential.
Mary Kearns, in an address to the Catholic Head Teachers Association of Scotland, spoke of the Nietzschean ideas now being taught in Catholic schools in the name of "scientific" psychology. Kearns said:
The methods are based on "the group therapy technique" first developed in America in the 1970's by two psychologists, Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow. They described how emotional conditioning should be carried out by a group "facilitator". The facilitator does not impart knowledge like the old fashioned teacher. Instead he/she initiates discussions encouraging children to reveal their personal views and feelings. The facilitator's approach is "value free". There is no right or wrong answer to any religious or moral question. Each person discloses what is right or wrong for them. All choices are equally valid even if they are opposites. Everything depends on feelings or emotions. Reason and conscience are discouraged. If anyone attempts objective evaluation, they are to be treated as an "outsider" and there will be a strong emotional reaction against such "judgemental intolerance".

If it is true that Catholic education now uses these techniques in "teaching religious and moral education," then the Catholic education system has entered into the Nietzschean insanity. If these are the techniques being used in education and in the seminaries, then sexual misconduct charges against priests are a symptom of "scientific" paganism replacing Christianity.
Santa Rosa priest Don Kimball, who is charged with sexual misconduct, is an example of someone whose "approach" was "value free" – that is, there was "no right or wrong answer to any religious or moral question."
In 1996, Karyn Wolfe and Mark Spaulding of Pacific Church News said, "THE WEDGE! You can't do youth ministry (any ministry for that matter) without it. ... Basing his theory on psychologist Abraham Maslow's 'Hierarchy of Needs', the Rev. Don Kimball developed this model for the growth and maturity process of a group."
Another example of the value-free approach is Thomas Zanzig, a major leader in the Catholic Church for youth ministry, plus an editor and writer of Catholic textbooks.
According to Marks S. Winward, Zanzig, in a book on youth ministry, "bases his 'Wedge Model' on a similar model developed by Fr. Don Kimble." Homeschool leader Marianna Bartold said, "Sharing the Christian Message by Thomas Zanzig has students come up with as many slang or street words as possible for penis and vagina in three or four minutes."
Now, many might say these are only isolated cases of misuses of Maslow and Adler until one reads the original text. According to William Coulson, a former collaborator of Carl Rogers,
Maslow was always a revolutionary. ... In 1965, working a radical idea about children and adult sex into his book about management, "In Eupsychian Management: A Journal," [Maslow said]: "I remember talking with Alfred Adler about this in a kind of joking way, but then we both got quite serious about it, and Adler thought that this sexual therapy at various ages was certainly a very fine thing. As we both played with the thought, we envisioned a kind of social worker ... as a psychotherapist in giving therapy literally on the couch."
As one can see, the basic therapeutic assumption leads to certain results in the real world. These thinkers don't believe in the basic Christian assumption that there is a need for forgiveness from God. Instead, they believe there is no sin, only selves needing to reach the fullness of themselves.
It is understandable that atheists such as Maslow , Adler and Gay activists could hold these basic assumptions that sexually abusing children is okay, just as Hitler thought killing Jews was okay since all have the basic assumption is that there is no right or wrong.
But that Christians and priests hold these assumptions is a disgrace. The denial of original sin and personal sin is, in large part, behind the headlines of the Boston catastrophe and other dioceses

21 comments:

Anonannosaurs Rex said...

The apt title for this article should have been, "How to teach bigotry and misinformation: A Catholic's propagation of patently false opinions as though they were fact"

So many unsubstantiated claims, presuppositions, logical errors (such as ipse dixit, circulus in probando, cum hoc ergo propter hoc) and falsehoods about basic biology and psychology, all packed into one article. Impressive! When so many canards are packed into one article it is difficult to address each one, so I'll just point out what I found hilariously ironic in the little time I have here.

The author flirts with the naturalistic fallacy, and says: "I had to first teach them what is natural to our nature and why it is good. God created what is natural for good reasons. [...] When ever we violate what is natural to our nature, we end with a disoriented nature, a sick nature"

The author goes on to assert the falsehood that homosexuality is a mental sickness: "This mental sickness borders on the demonic because it so violates nature."

No. Psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, a mental disorder, or an emotional problem. More than 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself, is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. American Psychological Association

Moreover, apparently the scientific fact that homosexuality occurs naturally throughout the animal kingdom (human beings included) was ignored:

Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals. 1,500 animal species practice homosexuality

Article for laypeople showing scientific evidence that sexual orientation is at least, in part biological.

So according to his own logic, he has refuted his own position on homosexuality.

More unsubstantiated rubbish by the author. Bigotry and assertions pulled out of thin air: "[Homoseuxality] often leads to pedophilia, because sex for nothing but personal satisfaction and not out of love ends up by hating all that is pure. It is even a way of showing hatred for God. The pedophile hates God and everything pure."

Any credible sources to back this up? Nope. One does not need to have homosexual proclivities to be a pedophile (see: Self-esteem and coping strategies in child molesters. Journal of Interpersonal Violence or Facts about homosexuality and child molestation, Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D.), anymore than being heterosexuality leads to rape. Many pedophiles are homosexuals, but many are also heterosexuals. In the broad sense, pedophilia is a sexual preference for children, the orientation of sex is irrelevant. Are the multitude of Catholic clergy who sexually molest little girls necessarily homosexual? Moreover, according to the flawed logic in this article, many Catholic clergy must surely hate Yahweh. And perhaps even those in the upper echelons of the Church who cover-up such crimes.

Priest raped 13-year-old girl in sacristy of church

More documented sexual abuse cases from Catholic clergy than you can shake a stick at.

St.B said...

Mr. Martinez,

You chose to post this tripe from Salbato…

Re Salbato: “God created man to be attracted to women, and he starts this attraction at a very young age, 8 to 10 years old. Man does not know why but he just likes women. Women start younger because they mature much faster. A woman is sexually mature about 10 years sooner than man is. She is also more sexually aggressive. You are going to disagree with me right now, but I will explain this later.”

It’s offensive. Scientifically incorrect. Misogynistic. I remind you, just as you and others have the rights of free speech to spew such inane nonsense, the rest of us have the right to dispute it.

Where exactly is the scientific data to back this and the other ludicrous points?

I feel great pity for the mental state you and he must live in… fear of; women, homosexuals, and seemingly anyone not of your ilk.

Fred Martinez said...

Norman Mailer, in his book "Prisoner of Sex," shows why this relativism and moving away from natural objective truths such as heterosexual sex can lead to will to power:
"So, yes, [homosexuals] in prison strive to become part of the male population, and indeed – it is the irony of homosexuality – try to take on the masculine powers of the man who enters them, even as the studs, if Genet is our accurate guide, become effeminate over the years. ... Homosexuality is not heterosexuality. There is no conception possible, no, no inner space, no damnable spongy pool of a womb ... no hint remains of the awe that a life in these circumstances can be conceived. Heterosexual sex with contraception is become by this logic a form of sexual currency closer to the homosexual than the heterosexual, a clearinghouse for power, a market for psychic power in which the stronger will use the weaker, and the female in the act, whether possessed of a vagina or phallus, will look to ingest or steal the masculine qualities of the dominator."
This is the end result when universal truths and responsibility toward those truths are denied. The only "currency" left to the left is stealing of power, because they are insecure in any truth including their own objective masculinity.
Unsure of their own objective masculinity – or any objective truth, for that matter – they will not tolerate truth, calling it intolerance. They will not tolerate the truth of the purpose of sex, which is married love, with the creation of a secure family for the children of that love.

Anonysaurus Rex said...

In my previous post I briefly pointed out one of the logical fallacies being committed, the "is-ought" aka "naturalistic" fallacy, where the author is trying to appeal to what he opines is natural to derive an ethical conclusion.

I suspect you're not familiar with this logical fallacy as you regurgitated a quote which essentially does the same: an attempt to derive an ethical conclusion based on a factual premise. Even though the factual premise in the quote is incorrect, it is still committing the naturalistic fallacy.

The final two paragraphs of your post are non-sequiturs, and finishes with a false dichotomy. There is only "purpose" to sex in the functional sense: procreation, pleasure, social bonding, etc. Open a text book on the matter and read, scientific consensus is the closest we have to "truth", and it doesn't agree with your opinions.

When you throw around the word "purpose" in the context of biology you imply intent. There is no intent in biology. The biological naturalistic pressures that guide evolution are blind. To maintain a position of intent and purpose is tautological. It implies non-evolutionary design, and that implies a designer. Unless you're one of the kooks who deny (scientific) reality (evolution) and cling to Bronze age canards on the nature of reality, the onus is on you to prove this intent and purpose in biology: (a) a designer (b) his intent regarding the act of sex.

Finally, you're also ineffectually throwing around the worth "truth" and "objective" to buttress opinions that have no actual robust objective evidential support. At best they're pressupostions, and what can be said about those? In the words of the Greek mathematian Euclid, "what has been affirmed without proof can also be denied without proof."

I'd call what you're doing sophistry but that's a disgrace to the Sophists.

Have a good day, and thanks for the lulz.

Anonysaurus Rex said...

Just to clarify my comment about there being no intent or purpose in biology. There is functional purpose, but this is not the context in which you used the terms. You used them in the teleological sense, and it is in that teleological sense where there is no intent or purpose.

Fred Martinez said...

Even a functional purpose reguires intent.

You have to be kidding. The purpose of sex is not children. You need to reread Darwin.

This has to be a joke.

St.B said...

Mr. Martinez,

Are you agreeing that the sole purposes of sexual relationships and bonding are NOT procreation? You aren’t really clear if you are attempting sarcasm. Human sexuality has evolved within the human species. Sexual bonding has been inherently part of our development and how most of us make intimate connections with our mates. Any claim that sexual coupling ONLY serves as a vehicle to transport sperm is short sighted and accepted as a falsehood.

The only joke would be if you are referring to Ray Comfort’s version of Darwin‘s On the Origin of Species.

How Creationist 'Origin' Distorts Darwin

avantgarbage said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonysaurus Rex said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonysaurus Rex said...

You didn't comprehend what I wrote:

There is only "purpose" to sex in the functional sense: procreation, pleasure, social bonding, etc.

The joke perhaps is your lack of comprehension between teleology and functional explanations in biology.

When Charles Darwin or evolutionary biologists use the word purpose, they do NOT use it in the teleological sense as you seem to be doing, but as functional explanations. Sexual reproduction is not some inherent purpose of sex. Sex, like other things, is merely a mechanism that results in the replication of genes. Thinking of it in terms other than mechanisms or processes is fallacious.

Don't worry, its a common misconception about evolutionary biology.

Evolution has no meaning or purpose. It is simply an indifferent phenomena. Perhaps in the future when you speak of purpose you should define your terms.

Edit: Deleted and re-posted to fix a typo.

St.B said...

On the topic of homosexuality, here is an amazing video: Just like their oppressors -- white Christians who used the Bible, "natural law", and religious arguments to justify discrimination against blacks -- these black Christians are using the same sorts of arguments to justify discrimination against homosexuals in the name of their god. Source: youtube.com/watch?v=OiIp5hOq1yA

Fred Martinez said...

There is a reason that Planned Parenthood and the homosexual political movement are so intertwined. Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger, an avowed racist worshipper of Adolph Hitler. The ideology of Sanger and her ilk can be seen in the racism that is still a driving force within the elitist mindset of the homosexual political machine. And it is no wonder that homosexual activists have gone to great extremes to take over the civil rights movement in America so that they can gain dominance and control over the black leaders who have been historically in charge of the civil rights movement. Go to any Martin Luther King celebration and you will find white homosexual leaders, who have absolutely nothing in common with the grave injustices committed against blacks in America, running the celebrations and rememberance events.

http://jameshartlinereport.blogspot.com/2008/11/racism-bigotry-are-big-components-of.html

Fred Martinez said...

There is a reason that Planned Parenthood and the homosexual political movement are so intertwined. Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger, an avowed racist worshipper of Adolph Hitler. The ideology of Sanger and her ilk can be seen in the racism that is still a driving force within the elitist mindset of the homosexual political machine. And it is no wonder that homosexual activists have gone to great extremes to take over the civil rights movement in America so that they can gain dominance and control over the black leaders who have been historically in charge of the civil rights movement. Go to any Martin Luther King celebration and you will find white homosexual leaders, who have absolutely nothing in common with the grave injustices committed against blacks in America, running the celebrations and rememberance events.

http://jameshartlinereport.blogspot.com/2008/11/racism-bigotry-are-big-components-of.html

Fred Martinez said...

You have to be kidding. The only observable final good of sex is not children. You need to reread Darwin.

Wikipedia says: “Biology has always been susceptible to teleological thought, even after Darwin proposed survival as the only observable final good.” 1 The only observable final good (for your sake we’ll use that instead of purpose) for Darwin is the survival of the species.

Darwin said: "[S]exual selection depends on the success of certain individuals over others of the same sex, in relation to the propagation of the species; while natural selection depends on the success of both sexes, at all ages, in relation to the general conditions of life. It is a struggle between individuals of one sex, generally the males, for the possession of the other sex. The result is not death to the unsuccessful competitor, but few or no offspring." (Darwin, 1859) 2

1.http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:GJ7jHnsjwNsJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology+purpose+teleological+darwin&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&ie=UTF-8]
2.http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:6qeYJYYudcYJ:web.missouri.edu/~flinnm/courses/mah/lectures/sexualselection.htm+reproductive+success+sexual+selection.+darwin&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&ie=UTF-8

Fred Martinez said...

First note that in order for the universe to fall back in on itself there would have to be enough mass for gravity to overcome the outward force of the expansion. But according to the best estimates scientists have, there isn't enough matter to cause such a contraction. Consequently, if the universe cannot contract, there could have been no previous big bangs and no endless cycles. At most you could posit one big bang.

There is nothing that would cause the universe to expand again after it had collapsed. If such a collapse occurred - a big crunch, so to speak - the universe would remain in an unimaginably compressed state, never capable of expanding again. The tremendous gravity exerted by such a great mass would prevent any expansion. Black holes, which are most probably collapsed stars, are an example of this phenomenon on a much smaller scale. A black hole's gravitational pull is so strong not even light is able to escape from it.

If all the matter in the universe were compressed into a single black hole or something like a black hole, the gravitational forces would be incalculable, and it is hard to imagine anything that could overcome them. If they couldn't be overcome, nothing could escape in the form of another big bang.

Even if there were a mechanism to re-expand the universe, each cycle of expansion and contraction would lose energy because of entropy, the tendency to of matter run down, much as a spring-driven clock runs down. The extent of the universe's expansion would diminish with each cycle - consider how swings of a pendulum slowly diminish - and eventually the universe would cease expanding entirely, its mass remaining collapsed. There could never be an infinite number of successive expansions and contractions.

Keep in mind that the idea that the universe came into existence as a result of a cataclysmic explosion of highly compressed matter is not inconsistent with the Catholic teaching that God created the universe. A big bang could have been part of his method of creation.

But an atheist has a problem here. If there really was a big bang, and if there could not have been an infinite series of big bangs before the present one, then there are only two possibilities: Either God created matter out of nothing and (arguably) set things going through a big bang - this alternative destroys atheism - or matter existed for an infinite amount of time in a primordial black hole state. But if it existed that way for an infinite amount of time, it never could have exploded in the big bang.

If an infinite amount of time passed without a big bang, then every combination of protoplasmic matter and energy would have existed at one time or another within that black hole, without any one combination leading to the big bang. All the combinations would have been tried, and none of them would have produced the explosion. (Remember, this presumes an infinite amount of time.) If none of the combinations could have produced a big bang, and if a big bang occurred anyway, it could have arisen only from outside intervention, not from anything inside the black hole.
Since the whole of the universe - all matter and energy, even space Itself - was compressed into the black hole, "outside" must imply a non-natural force, a force above nature, and that is the definition of supernatural. No matter which alternative an atheist takes, he ends up with God.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/atheism

Anonysaurus Rex said...

"Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger, an avowed racist worshipper of Adolph Hitler [blah blah blah]"

This is irrelevant and I really could care less about Margaret Sanger or Planned Parenthood, but just to illustrate dishonesty and bloviation of stupidity:

(1) Logical fallacy of posioning the well
(2) Logical fallacy of ad hominem attack.
(3) Regurgitating misinformation makes you dishonest, unless you're ignorant of what you copy-and-paste, but that makes you careless and oblivious to your confirmation bias.

Margaret Sanger was a member of the American Council Against Nazi Propaganda, and "gave money, my name and any influence I had with writers and others, to combat Hitler's rise to power in Germany." ("World War II and World Peace," 1940? [MSM S72:269])

Regardless, that particular reply of yours was a desperate attempt to refute the irrefutable video (St. B posted) which perfectly parallels the same religious arguments you use, to those that many white American Christians used to discriminate against black Americans.

Moreover, congratulations for being another person to prove Godwin's Law or Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies. It goes like this, "As a [...] discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches [...] whoever makes such a comparison is said to 'lose' the debate."

Anonysaurus Rex said...

Regarding your copy-and-pasting from http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/?qid=1549, "There are several points you could make. First note that in order for the universe to fall back in on itself there would have"

Do you often leave out the context of your quotes? You really should have copy-and-pasted the question your link is answering:

"How should I respond to an atheist who denies creation, claims there has been an infinite number of universes before this one, and believes that the universe was made not by God but through the "Big Bang," part of the universe's endless cycle of expansion and contraction?"

Who in this comments page espoused a position on the cyclical universe? And which model? There are more than one. Your link doesn't address the Steinhardt and Turok cylic model. The answer attempts to refute the question based on supernaturalist presuppositions, and some patently false and bare assertions.

For example, look at this bare assertion: "The universe would remain in an unimaginably compressed state".

Or look at this wonderfully obtuse claim that conflates black holes with a singularity: "Since the whole of the universe - all matter and energy, even space Itself - was compressed into the black hole."

If the author of that crap is going to discuss black holes, Hawking Radiation should be discussed since Hawking Radiation shows that black holes aren't a state of perfect entropy.

Not to mention the entire article is tautological, and it's conclusion creates infinite regress which is only escaped by yet another logical fallacy special pleading.

What will the next evasive reply entail? Perhaps some more canards that have already been refuted? Fine tuning canard perhaps?

Try staying on topic: "How to teach bigotry and misinformation: A Catholic's propagation of patently false opinions as though they were fact." The original post contains patently false claims regarding homosexuality which I detailed. You didn't address any of them.

Anonysaurus Rex said...

"You need to reread Darwin"

Modern evolutionary theory has been modified since Darwin's version. The ToE hasn't remained static in the face of new evidence and information (unlike religious dogmas). It's been 150 years since the ToE was published. Gaps in his knowledge have been filled, errors he's made corrected.

-----------

"The only observable final good of sex is not children." and Wikipedia says [...] even after Darwin proposed survival as the only observable final good."

You're quoting Larry Wright on Darwin, a philosophical publication from 1968. Don't pass that off as a position Darwin maintained unless you can provide the book, chapter, and page number Darwin said it in. It's nonsensical to attribute that position to Darwin. He said nothing about "good," "final" or otherwise. On the Origin of Species offered a hypothesis about the cause of observed speciation. It says nothing about the morality of that cause, or the moral implications of natural selection because there aren't any. Now I suppose this is where you reply with a vacuous "you need to reread Darwin," and cherry pick quotes to feed that confirmation bias.

Furthermore, did you even read the rest of the section? Nice quote mining.

--------

Our skulls are "for" preventing brain injuries when something hits our heads. That doesn't mean we should hit our head. Hitting our heads to allow our skulls to fulfill its biological "purpose" is just dumb, and the reasoning flawed.

But, if you must play this game:

(1) Addressing the false dichotomy regarding homosexuals and children: Homosexuals still have children. Sexual orientation is not an either-or trait but exists as a continuum (Haynes 1995). Those with some heterosexual orientation can still contribute homosexual genes (to the extent it is genetic; see above). And even the most extreme homosexuals sometimes have children.

(2) Genes for homosexuality could be beneficial on the whole. In bonobo chimpanzees, homosexual interactions are a form of social cement. It is possible that homosexuality evolved to serve social functions in humans, too (Kirkpatrick 2000). After all, social cohesion is still a main function of sex in humans.

The genetic etiology of homosexuality may come from a collection of traits that, when expressed strongly and in concert, result in homosexuality; expressed less strongly or without supporting traits, these traits contribute to the robust nature of our species. The genes for these traits persist because they usually combine to make us better at survival and reproduction.

Genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men apparently boost fertility in women. Female relatives of gay men, on their mother's side of the family, had more children than female relatives of heterosexual men. (Corna et al. 2004)

It should be noted that the question of explaining homosexuality is not limited to humans. Homosexuality exists in hundreds of animal species (Bagemihl 1998).

Anonysaurus Rex said...

There's a wealth of research on this, and it's even accessible to laypeople on popular science periodicals and sites.

IE: A common assumption is that homosexuality means not having children, but this is not necessarily true, especially in cultures other than our own. Until it became acceptable for same-sex couples to live together in western countries, many homosexual people had partners of the opposite sex. In some traditional societies, various forms of non-exclusive homosexuality were common.

Among animals, homosexual behaviour is usually non-exclusive. For instance, in some populations of Japanese macaques, females prefer female sexual partners to male ones but still mate with males - they are bisexual, in other words.

It has also been suggested that homosexuality boosts individuals' reproductive success, albeit indirectly. For instance, same-sex partners might have a better chance of rising to the top of social hierarchies and getting access to the opposite sex. In some gull species, homosexual partnerships might be a response to a shortage of males - rather than have no offspring at all, some female pairs raise offspring together after mating with a male from a normal male-female pair.

Another possibility is that homosexuality evolves and persists because it benefits groups or relatives, rather than individuals. In bonobos, homosexual behaviour might have benefits at a group level by promoting social cohesion. One study in Samoa found gay men devote more time to their nieces and nephews, suggesting it might be an example of kin selection (promoting your own genes in the bodies of others).
-Source

Anonysaurus Rex said...

Homosexual behavior is common in nature, and it plays an important role in survival,

[R]esearchers are finding that same-sex couplings are surprisingly widespread in the animal kingdom. Roy and Silo belong to one of as many as 1,500 species of wild and captive animals that have been observed engaging in homosexual activity. Researchers have seen such same-sex goings-on in both male and female, old and young, and social and solitary creatures and on branches of the evolutionary tree ranging from insects to mammals.

... the study of homosexual activity in diverse species may elucidate the evolutionary origins of such behavior. Researchers are now revealing, for example, that animals may engage in same-sex couplings to diffuse social tensions, to better protect their young or to maintain fecundity when opposite-sex partners are unavailable—or simply because it is fun. These observations suggest to some that bisexuality is a natural state among animals, perhaps Homo sapiens included, despite the sexual-orientation boundaries most people take for granted. “[In humans] the categories of gay and straight are socially constructed,” Anderson says."

...human same-sex environments might bring out normal tendencies that other settings tend to suppress. That is, some experts argue that humans, like some other animals, are naturally bisexual. “We should be calling humans bisexual because this idea of exclusive homosexuality is not accurate of people,” Roughgarden says. “Homosexuality is mixed in with heterosexuality across cultures and history.”


-Scientific American Mind, June 2008

Fred Martinez said...

There are child abusers mixed in with with non-child abusers across cultures and history.

Do you think Child abuse is right because of this reason? Answer Yes or No

There are persons who murder mixed in with with non-murdering persons across cultures and history.

Do you think muderer is right because of this reason? Answer Yes or No

Etc...