PRESS RELEASE
Drachma (Drachma LGBTI and Drachma Parents Group) on the Church Position
Paper on Conversion Therapy
It is our duty as LGBTIQ persons and parents
of LGBTIQ persons who embrace the Catholic faith to express how we feel about
the Position Paper of the Church about Conversion Therapy.
1.
We expected
this group of experts commissioned to write this Paper to include LGBTIQ people
who are living this reality. It would have been appropriate for the Church to
dialogue with us about this delicate subject, especially after the significant
gesture done by the Church when a few months ago it requested a member of
Drachma to form part of the panel that prepared the Position Paper on the Embryo
Act and to give a talk about LGBTIQ matters to the College of Parish Priests.
2.
We expected
the Church not to miss out on an opportunity to build bridges with the LGBTIQ
community by stating clearly that it is against conversion therapy, even though there might be certain elements in
the bill that may require further clarification.
3.
We expected
that the Church would sympathise with all LGBTIQ persons who had to go through conversion therapies and ask for
forgiveness in the name of members within the Institution, amongst which
priests, who recommended or practised conversion
therapy. At no point was there any indication of concern towards the pain
of such people or of their families.
4.
We expected
the prime concern of the paper to be the psychological, emotional and spiritual
damage suffered by victims of conversion
therapies. Instead the Paper focuses on the fear that the autonomy of the
professionals might be at risk or that the professionals might be subject to
criminalisation. In its conclusion, the Paper is critical of the Bill that
attempts to address the needs of a vulnerable group at the expense of the
professionals who can face criminal charges. However, seen from a different
angle, the Paper is also defending the interests of professionals at the expense
of a vulnerable group.
5.
However, it
is important for us to clarify that we are not encouraging in any way the loss
of the independence of professionals in this field of work or that we endorse
the possibility of individuals operating in a genuine and authentic manner to
be criminalised. Indeed, we are grateful for all those professionals who have
been consistent with the highest ethical standards in the service they offer to
LGBTIQ people and their relatives.
6.
We expected
the Paper to clearly state that no sexual orientation is a disorder or an
illness, and hence, does not require the person to seek any form of healing.
7.
We did not
expect the Paper to say that the law can be a deterrent on anyone who out of
his or her own free will seeks therapy to change his or her sexual identity or
orientation. On the contrary, we expected the Church to educate the public by
explaining that one’s sexual orientation should not need to be changed.
8.
We did not
expect the Paper to state that an individual has the right to change his or her
gender identity. In reality, when a transgender person undergoes gender reassignment, s/he would not be
changing gender but aligning the biological sex that the person is born with to
his or her internal gender identity. This is not conversion therapy. Any counselling done before the transition
(which is not required by law) does not seek to trigger off any form of change
but to support the person so that prior to the transition, the individual
develops more self-awareness; is informed about the different stages that s/he
will be going through; and is made aware of the consequences; and to be in a
position to make an informed decision. This is not conversion therapy. The expert members of the Board
commissioned to draft this Paper should know better. The Bill is referring to
LGBTIQ people who attend therapy sessions with the aim to ‘heal’ from their
sexuality or transsexuality. This type of therapy should not be allowed to keep
on happening. Hence, we see little purpose for the references made in this
Paper to the statements issued by the European Court.
9.
We did not
expect this Paper (paragraph 7b) to say that one should change sexual
orientation for religious reasons. One can, for religious reasons, change
or address behaviour, and this equally applies to gay and straight
persons. Unfortunately, one can also opt to suppress one’s
sexual identity. However, we repeat once again that sexual orientation can
never be modified. Therefore, why does the Church offer false hopes, giving the
impression that it is defending the promotion of conversion therapies? It is actually due to religious and spiritual
reasons that conversion therapy
should not be practised, since sexual orientation and gender identity are a
gift from God, and any form of therapy should encourage a person to embrace
with serenity this God-given gift.
10.
Conversion
therapy does not include spiritual direction offered to people (gay or
straight) who seek to lead a celibate life. The purpose of conversion therapy
is not
to modify behaviour but aims to change sexual orientation.
11.
We did not
expect the Paper to refer to paedophilia as an example of a ‘grey area’. It is
surprising how a board of experts (which includes a psychologist) was not
capable of making the difference between paedophilia and homosexuality, which
are totally unrelated to each other.
12.
We did not
expect the Position Paper to make any form of connection between homosexuality
and childhood traumas, thus implying that the homosexual identity is the cause
of pathological development. It is interesting to pose the question whether the
same approach would have been taken with a straight
person who has undergone childhood traumas. Would s/he have been advised to
heal from his or her heterosexuality and would the sexual identity been
directly linked with the trauma?
13.
The example
quoted in reference to bisexual persons who are married clearly shows a lack of
understanding of the bisexual reality and confirms the point made earlier on,
that this Board would have benefited extensively by including in it LGBTIQ
representatives.
14.
We are aware
that there might be aspects of this Bill that require further clarification so
that there are no hindrances in the work of the professionals. Therefore, we
encourage more dialogue in this matter.
15.
It is sad to
see that this Position Paper did not seek to build bridges with LGBTIQ persons
and with their families in Malta. On the contrary, the Church tended to erect
walls. Drachma has often supported people who were broken due to this mentality
and to the intervention of these so-called therapies. Drachma is still open to
dialogue with everyone and would like to extend this invitation to the
Archbishop and to the Church in Malta. Drachma is willing to offer its humble contribution
if asked.
Chris Vella Joseanne
Peregin
Coordinator Coordinator
Drachma LGBTI Drachma
Parents Group
Sunday, 21 February 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment