After a major scientific study found there is not a singular genetic marker for homosexuality, a Catholic theologian explained that the findings are fully in accord with Catholic teaching.
The study was published Aug. 30 in Science. It examined data from several large genetic databanks in multiple countries, and surveyed nearly half a million people about their sexual partners and preferences. Previous studies on the matter have only examined sample groups of hundreds of people.
“From a genetic standpoint, there is no single [genetic distinction] from opposite-sex to same-sex sexual behaviors,” said Andrea Ganna, a geneticist at Finland’s Institute of Molecular Medicine, and the study’s lead author.
Speaking to Scientific American, Eric Vilain, a geneticist at Children’s National Health System in Washington, D.C., called the study’s result “the end of the ‘gay gene’” theory.
Fr. James Martin SJ, author of “Building a Bridge: How the Catholic Church and the LGBT Community Can Enter into a Relationship of Respect, Compassion, and Sensitivity,” told CNA that “the study shows that a variety of factors, including genetic factors, influence human sexuality.”
“For me, the most helpful quote came from a geneticist who was one of the lead researchers, who talked about how ‘natural’ homosexuality is,” Martin said, quoting Dr. Benjamin Neale of MIT.
Neale told the New York Times that same-sex behavior is “written into our genes and it’s part of our environment… this is part of our species and it’s part of who we are.”
“That seems to sum up the results of the study accurately,” said Martin.
The research showed five distinct genetic data points which appear common among individuals who reported at least one same-sex encounter. Two of these markers appear linked to hormones and smell, factors in sexual attraction.
But the five markers together explained less than 1% of differences in sexual activity among the population, the results found.
Dr. Kevin Miller, assistant professor of theology at Franciscan University in Steubenville, Ohio, told CNA that the results are in accord with the Church’s existing teaching about homosexuality.
“The Catechism treats homosexuality in nos. 2357-2359. Early in this treatment we read that its ‘psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.’ The new study does not change this.”
The study draws a distinction between people who engage in homosexual acts and those who identified as “gay” or “homosexual,” a distinction Miller noted was already central to the Church’s teachings.
The Catechism teaches that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered” and “under no circumstances can they be approved.” This is because, Miller said, only sexual acts oriented by their nature to the possibility of procreation and set within marriage are “compatible with the essential moral virtue of chastity and – as St. John Paul II emphasized in both his pre-papal and papal writings – love.”.
But, Miller noted, the homosexual tendency or inclination itself is not “morally wrong,” since a person does not choose to have an inclination or exercise their free will over having it.
Central to understanding the distinction between sexual inclinations and acts, Miller said, is that all sexual acts are freely chosen; even if a person has an interior disposition toward engaging in homosexual acts, they have the same freedom to pursue them or not as a person inclined towards immoral acts with someone of the opposite sex.
“One can see that in this explanation of the Church’s teaching, there is no reference of any sort to the cause of the homosexual tendency or disposition. This is simply irrelevant to the analysis of the moral goodness or evil of homosexual acts, and of the ordered or disordered character of the homosexual tendency or disposition.”
“Even if it could be shown that a homosexual tendency or orientation is wholly biologically determined, this would not affect at all the logic underlying the Church’s teaching.”
Full story at Catholic News Agency.
“Born that way” was a completely calculated lie from the beginning. But even if “born that way” were true, homosexuality would still be disordered.
So there you have it – not born gay! The inclination toward homosexuality is not sinful, but homosexual activities are. The Church describes those activities as “objectively disordered”. Clear enough!
I am not a scientist, but I did listen in biology class. It would seem that had there ever been a gene for homosexuality, say by a mutation, it would have died out for two reasons: First, almost all mutations are detrimental in various ways, and, secondly, a person who carried the alleged “gene for homosexuality” would be far less apt to pass it on to the next generation because he or she would be reproducing far less on average than persons who do not carry this gene. In any case we could expect less and less occurrence of homosexuality over time. One might expect the occurrence of homosexuality to be declining but more prevalent among women, because women carriers of the gene might often become pregnant due to their social/marital situation unrelated to their desires, whereas men who carried the “gene” would be less inclined to impregnate women, so homosexuality would always be more prevalent among men, although declining over time.
However, what we observe today is a distinct rise in the occurrence of homosexuality. Therefore it would make sense to seek its causes elsewhere than in the human genome.
I meant to say that if there were such a thing as a “homosexuality gene,” logically there would be more homosexuals on the female line.
The reason their is no gene is because Homosexuality has a demonic and spiritual component to it.
the spirit enters via sodomy, now many married people are doing this too, the bible speaks of sodomy being a grave sin.
a distant family member was a lesbian for years she was even married to a women, they both were invited to a christian healing
service while there the holy spirit came upon them after 30 mins of being slain in the spirit they both got up from the floor and were no longer lesbians in any way shape or form, they ended up getting divorced, one went off to marry a man and now has 3 children, the other
gives her testimony of hope and healing to everyone and anyone she meets and who will listen.
Robert – Regarding your thoughts about whether there are more female homosexuals than male homosexuals. There are more same sex attracted females than same sex attracted males. By about 2:1 according to the stats. But about 2/3 of those women are also attracted to the opposite sex (in other words, they are bisexual). I’m not sure if I understand your theory about why that might be so, but the data do support that part of your hypothesis.
Robert, I appreciate that you are trying to apply science to your understanding of the situation, but there are limits to a high school education. First, simply the ability to reproduce isn’t the same thing as having a trait that makes a population more likely to succeed. For example, if the population – a clan or extended family – carry genes that make them as a group more able to care for their young or survive in challlenging circumstances, it might be just as important evolutionarily as the ability for an individual member of that population to mate and give birth. Consider a cousin that maybe hasn’t given birth but can help the rest of the family survive a hurricane. Secondly, this sudy does’t discuss how a homosexual trait would be inherited from one generation to the next. In other words, it’s not as though a gene variant or mutation had to exist tens of thousands of years ago and then survived, it could be that the variants occur fairly often, such that even if a lineage dies out, it might be replaced by new variants that occur spontaneously from time to time. I appreciate your consideration of science and how it relates to these findings.
Fr. James Martin is a pseudo intellectual and a pseudo Catholic, but he is a true Jesuit.
No, he is not a true Jesuit as St. Francis Xavier did not teach that homosexual acts were okay. If he did he would not be a saint.
What does St. Francis Xavier have to do with any of this? What does it mean to not be a true jesuit?
Do ‘most’ consider this study conclusive? Or is it a ‘first’? My limited understanding of science is that repeated studies get higlhy similar results before a conclusion is accepted.
This study is now considered the state of the art. No other study of the genetics of homosexuality comes anywhere close to the power of this one, both because they surveyed almost a half a million people and because modern genomic studies is much more fine-tuned than it was when the first reported linkage on the X chromosome was reported.
I wonder if Amazon will stop its ban of the works of Dr. Joseph Nicolosi.
To say that God makes homosexuals is pure blasphemy!
Ron: Isn’t it blasphemy to say that something else other than God created homosexuals? If it’s not blasphemy, it is certainly heresy.
“SEXUAL IMMORALITY” – BIBLE SCRIPTURE – “Wisdom of Solomon 14:14” – “Sexual immorality began when idols were invented. They have corrupted human life ever since they were first made. Idols have not always existec, nor will they will exist forever. It was ‘Human Pride that brought them into the world, and that is why a quick end has been planned for them.” – Reference: Good News Bible GNT
The study did NOT say that there is no gay gene. It said that there is no SINGLE gay gene. It would be like saying that there is no gene for height, when we know that height is affected by many genes and that other things also influence how tall a person will get including nutrition, exercise, etc.
YFC,
Yes, what you said was my “take away” from the article as well. In truth, though, they’ll never find a set of genes that cause homosexuality either. The best they’ll do is find genes that cause personality traits that, in turn, can put a person at psychological risk for developing a homosexual orientation. This, of course, were some of the findings of Dr. Joseph Nicolosi.
Well, no Nicolosi said other things, but and you are reading into this particular study, but I’m glad you got my point.
Wow my post today at 6:19 pm got mangled! I guess i was distracted making dinner.
I meant to thank Steve for honIestly trying to read a complicated story and research article. But, I cautioned, I don’t think that you can also conclude that Nicolosi was right or that you were correctly quoting the supposed findings of Nicolosi.
YFC,
I’m glad you re-posted. To clarify, I wasn’t saying that the study shows that Dr. Nicolosi was correct. Rather, I was just giving my prediction for the future. As for Nicolosi, himself, I’m mostly familiar with the ideas of Dr. Elizabeth Moberly. It seems that Nicolosi built on her work and on the work of others.
Since my knowledge was dated, I went to Nicolosi’s website about ten years ago to see if they had made any refinements or progress. It was at that time that I learned that there might be some differences between how homosexuality develops between men and women. I also learned that boys who have a more sensitive demeanor appear to be more likely to develop same-sex attraction. I don’t think Nicolosi ever said that a sensitive demeanor had a genetic origin — that was just me providing a future best case scenario for the homosexuality-is-genetic opinion.
Ahh ok. Well, leaving aside Nicolosi’s work, I think it is generally accepted that there is a difference between LGBT men and LGBT women. For starters, the best data suggests that about 2/3 of women who identify as LGBT are actually bisexual, while only 1/3 of LGBT men are bisexual. Assuming that is correct, that tells us off the bat that there is a difference in how the genders experience their sexual orientation. This study bears that out. There were a couple of genetic differences that men had that women did not. There were a few that women had that men did not. And there were a few that they shared in common. This completely matches what the demographic data tells us about sexual orientation, and also what the limited genetic data have been telling us.
YFC,
I must add, of course, that having some minor and loosely connected statistical genetic correlations between male and female homosexuals and heterosexuals doesn’t infer that there’s an amalgamation of genes that causes homosexuality. Rather, I think this more likely means that certain personality behaviors that have a genetic origin can place people at greater [or lesser] risk for developing certain psychological behaviors, such as homosexuality.
For example, if a boy is more sensitive due to genetics, this could turn off some macho fathers, thus causing the boy to enmesh with the mother, thus causing the father to become more hostile and distant. A sensitive boy would also be more likely to internalize and exaggerate the meaning of a hostile or distant father. This is a simplistic scenario, but it demonstrates the point that genes can undoubtedly cause certain propensities in psychological development.
Not a bad conversation, huh? :)
Not a bad conversation at all. But I would caution against any notion that paternal distance or maternal closeness has anything to do with the genesis of homosexuality. Data just don’t bear it out. And it causes unnecessary grief and psychological trauma among parents who blame their child’s sexuality on something they did. And it makes for crazy reparative therapies which aim to correct supposed defects in parenting – therapies which basically never work. Best to follow the data where it leads. In this case, a gene for a hormone receptor, and another for olfaction, both which make some sense but the details have yet to be worked out.
YFC,
I’m sorry, but I won’t be able to reply until tomorrow. Please check back then.
YFC,
I’m not familiar with data that contradicts Moberly/Nicolosi. Please note, though, that clinical psychology is part science/part art. There are people who see psychologists their entire adult life for depression but only get sicker and sicker. Does this mean that psychology is a failure? Or do it mean that the therapist lacked skill or the patient wasn’t willing to do the work?
We know the following. There is not a gay gene. At best, some conjecture there might be a set of genes (olfaction isn’t likely since it doesn’t work at distance). However, there is undoubtedly a heterosexual gene(s) that correspond with the male/female sex organs and basic animal behavior.
We also know that heterosexuality can be altered (perverted) through habit (i.e. vice) and can also be interfered with and become homosexual as in the case of rape and incest. This all points to psychology.
Gay activists cite lapses of recidivism as evidence that the theories are wrong, but recidivism is common in psychotherapy, especially when dealing with more difficult issues. Psychology also explains same-sex ambivalence that is prevalent among male homosexuals.
Dr. Nicolosi told me that he has had many patients who had their heterosexuality restored including some whose earliest sexual memories where homosexual. Dr. James Dobson also had a high member of his staff who is a former homosexual.
In the end, I feel that the gay gene theory is a weak argument.
OK Steve thanks for getting back to the conversation, but you through out an enormous amount of things that really don’t relate to the converation at hand. The question is whether there is a genetic component to homosexuality. [And, fwiw, leaves aside more complicated questions as to whether there is a genetical component to homosexuality…and yes they are different questions]
As to data that contradicts Nicolosi, I’m not aware of data that confirms his. In the first place his data were not all that well regarded in terms of its objectivity and I’m not really aware of anyone who has repeated his observations. And observations are, after all, only that, not confirmations well tested, as is required of a scientific hyphothesis.
As to therapies that may or may not work, per your example with depression: It is pretty well established that most therapies that aim to cure people of homosexuality don’t work. More importantly, it has been shown that most of those therapies actually worsen the clients’ mental state: They are MORE prone to suicidality. They are MORE prone to depression, They are MORE prone to be less productive members of society. This is precisely why those therapies are increasingly being banned for minors (who presumably are under the influence of their parents to undergo the therapy in the first place).
I’m not privy to what Dr. Nicolosi might have told you, but some of his patients have told me he was a quack. As to Dr. Dobson, please cite one single member of his staff who is “formerly homosexual”. Most of the people who use that term have admitted that reparative therapy doesn’t work. Just ask their wives.
YFC,
I’ll get back to you tomorrow. It might take some doing to get the name of the Dobson associate, but I’ll try to get it for you.
YFC,
I apologize in advance for the length of this message. I wish I had more time and energy to tighten the prose and logic.
Concerning research, Nicolosi was a clinical psychologist: not a research psychologist. Therefore, his knowledge came from his practice and the knowledge of others and not from conducting non-clinical research. There are psychologists who continue his work. I can’t say much more about this.
As far as reparative therapy enhancing depression and suicidal tendencies, this is simply not true. It’s my understanding that reparative therapy is standard psychotherapy which focuses on repairing a rift in the patient’s childhood bond with the father. If the therapist is competent, there’s no downside for investigating these issues because most people have issues with their parents.
It should also be noted that most people who actively see a therapist will temporarily have episodes of increased depression. This is because the patient is stirring up old, repressed memories. If a psychologist pushes his patient faster than the subconscious is willing, the patient may also experience psychosis. But, if the therapist has skill and the patient is doing the work, the patient will eventually improve.
[1 of 2, Continued on Next]
[Continued from Previous]
Nicolosi was not a quack, and I’ll cite two reasons. The first is that the Archdiocese of Los Angeles had used him in the past. The second is that I knew a man who saw Nicolosi for an evaluation for the seminary. The evaluation didn’t bar him from entry, but he was totally irate with Nicolosi’s “shoddy” evaluation of him. Several years later, the seminarian saw another psychologist for intensive counseling. After the seminarian came out of denial about his issues, he told me that Nicolosi’s original evaluation was actually stunningly accurate.
Regarding Dr. Dobson, I’ll have to talk to people to get the name. I’ll get back to you on this.
Based on my own thinking which I mentioned earlier, I think it’s highly likely that homosexuality has psychological origins. From what I can tell based on my own discussions with homosexuals, there appears to be multiple psychological causes for homosexuality. One also can’t underestimate the role of habit in entrenching a fledgling behavior. I would bet that Nicolosi, himself, would say that more work still needs to be done in the field.
[2 of 3, End]
Steve, please take note: “Those whose parents tried to change their sexual orientation had three-fold higher odds of having ever attempted suicide (aOR 3.08, 95 percent CI 1.39-6.83). Those whose parents enlisted the help of a professional (therapist or religious leader) to change their sexual orientation had a five-fold higher odds of having ever attempted suicide (aOR 5.07, 95 percent CI 2.38-10.79).Overall, the field of psychiatry continues to condemn efforts to change a person’s sexual orientation.”
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/political-minds/201811/gay-conversion-therapy-associated-suicide-risk
YFC,
Psychology Today doesn’t vet their contributors. The link that you shared includes parents and pastors in the category of practitioners of reparative therapy. This explains why we can’t agree. When I talk of reparative therapy, I’m only talking about a licensed Ph.D or Psy.D who’s familiar with the theories.
The article is heavily biased and conflates children seeing psychologists with children seeing their parents, pastors, and psychologists. Therefore, we’re almost entirely talking about people who aren’t psychotherapists and who are likely completely ignorant of the subject. The children of such parents would probably be more likely to commit suicide because of factors having nothing to do with actual, real reparative therapy.
In other words, who would be more likely to commit suicide? Homosexuals of lackadaisical amoral parents or homosexuals of highly judgmental, condemning, religious parents?
But if the article was actually legitimate, you would still be asking me to condemn the field of psychotherapy. I’ll ask an important question: From a therapeutic standpoint, how can digging up repressed memories to resolve internal stress and delving into one’s past to try to heal an emotional rift with the same sex parent cause life long depression or an increase risk of suicide?
Steve you seem to be asking me to speculate about a lot of things. However, I think it is safe to say that one can warn about one therapeutic technique without calling into question the entire field of psychotherapy. In fact, several professional associations have done precisely that. https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/just-the-facts
Experts in suicide prevention are alarmed by the effects of conversion therapies, so much so that they publish an issue brief on the subject https://afsp.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/AFSP_ConversionTherapy_IssueBrief_2019.pdf
Your Fellow Catholic,
I think it’s time for you to return home — you’ve been outside far too long. You’ve dismissed my valid points on specious grounds and aren’t arguing persuasively. The biggest hurdle for people to overcome in the spiritual life is realizing the imperative for change. This doesn’t come easy and the unconscious has a variety of defense mechanism that keep people in place.
In your case, I’m finally seeing the cracks show in your behavior. Whether you know it or not, the rays of truth are beginning to gently disturb you. This is beautiful. May the Beauty of Truth, which is the Lord, continue to work on your spirit so that you may come to eternal life.
One does not need to have a religion to know that sodomy is disgusting. All one needs is a nose to become nauseated by the very disgusting smells. Sodomy is insanity.
Drugs, alcohol and female birth control hormones in the waters are a big factor in the gayification of an individual including animals.
“Yes, endocrine-disrupting chemicals like those found in birth control can cause male fish to produce female proteins and develop eggs in their testes. In 2009, Tyler and co-authors reported that exposing wild roach fish (Rutilus rutilus) to a synthetic estrogen can result in intersex fish”
Does birth control affect fish?
Estrogen in birth control pills has a negative impact on fish. Summary: New research shows that hormones found in birth control pills alter the genes in fish, which can cause changes in their behavior.
I have a natural inclination to want to eat nothing but pizza. When I eat too much of it I get sick – the result of the sin of gluttony.I fight constantly this impulse. When I resist I feel much better.
Every human impulse for good can be corrupted. Every single one of the deadly sins emerges from a natural, healthy, and necessary human urge. it is when those urges overtake their necessary aspects that sin arises. I’m not quite sure that pizza, per se, is a human urge – though I certainly love it too – the desire for food is essential for human existance. It’s not that you desire food (including pizza) that is the sin. It is the overindulgence of that desire is what is what we call gluttony. Having said that, I’m not quite sure why were are discussing pizza on this thread, which is not what it was about at all.
It true that estrogen in certain waterways from plastics and the contraceptive pill are deforming the fish sexually, but where is the evidence it is doing that in humans? According to this report, it seems deformed genitalia in humans are still the exception. Also, where is the excuse for lesbian behavior? Where are they getting all the testosterone? It seems they should be being bombarded with estrogen also.
I thing these behaviors, like all others for the most part, are just vices to which people get addicted and have a hard time overcoming for one reason or another and just want to make excuses for their behavior.
Anne TE, Lesbians dont by and large have excess testosterone, and gay men don’t by and large have excess estrogen. Exposure to waters that contain estrogen like chemicals has never been shown to be responsible for “gayification” or anything close to it, despite what some posters put here. In fact, a google search for the quote shows that it is a completely debunked.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-bad-science-headlines-echo-across-internet-180964259/#targetText=In%202009%2C%20Tyler%20and%20co,effects%20on%20the%20aquatic%20ecosystem.
So what you are saying is that it is a decision. Everyone knows that already but keep trying to blame God, or the water, or their parents or whatever to excuse their behavior, whether they are engaging in fornication, adultery, sodomy or bestiality, but in the long run all it is is a decision to engage in such behavior in spite of the fact God forbids such things, and it causes harm to the body and society.
It is the same old story, Adam blamed God for giving him Eve whom he also blamed, she blame the devil and the devil, well he was and is the ultimate seducer, but God punished them all as he will us.
That is if we engage in such behavior.
This was in reply to YFC.
Sexual orientation is not a decision or a choice.. For a bisexual person, they have some decisions to make with regard to whether they will be equally open to relationships with the same sex, but for homosexual people, they don’t realistically have the option of pursuing healthy sexual relationships with people of the opposite sex. Of course, everyone makes decisions about whether and with whom they will have sexual relations, but the basic underlying attraction – the sexual orientation – is not a choice or a decision.
There is another way: Homosexuals Anonymous http://www.homosexuals-anonymous.com – for men and women with unwanted same-sex attractions. Or for German Catholics: Miserere Nobis! http://www.misererenobis.org