An “Open Letter” to the members of the Canadian House of Bishops

A very important testimony from psychiatrist Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, M.D.

Introduction:

“That day was particularly difficult, I had been called in for a neurological assessment of a young man suffering from multiple problems, some of which had began to affect his nervous system and mind. Perhaps the difficulty arose merely because I had restored personhood to the “case”. I was young myself (1981) and therefore identified with him; I am inclined to think, however, that it went beyond that. (p. 9)

Though terribly gaunt, the man at one time had obviously been strikingly handsome. I introduced myself warmly, trying to sound less the doctor and more the human being, but in response I got a barely audible, unintelligent gurgle. He opened his eyes and rolled them vacantly around the room, responding to my greeting as to a vaguely perceived stimulus of some sort. I knew immediately that a formal examination of his mental status would be fruitless. As I anticipated, the neurological exam revealed multiple severe abnormalities. (p. 11)

Subjectively, most striking in the exam were the angry purple welts that covered most of both arms and wrapped around his sides toward his back. These, I knew, were Kaposi’s sarcoma, a virulent, ugly cancer once so rare that a single incident instantly made the medical literature. Now suddenly it was popping up in clusters of two, three, ten at a time at major medical centres across the country, especially in San Francisco and here, in New York. (p. 11)

By the time my visit ended, it was apparent that the entire consultation was more important to me—from an educational perspective—than to him. He would surely not survive the week. (p. 11)

The story of this young man, of his all-too-brief life and painful, wasting death, soon appeared in a landmark report in one of the world’s premier medical journals along with the nearly identical stories of seven others. AIDS had appeared on the scene, the deadly modern disease that has stalked our lives, headlines, and imaginations like a medieval plague. It was known to us then simply as GRID, “gay-related immune disorder.” This name reflected the fact that in Europe, America, and Asia, AIDS was then—as it remains today—dramatically disproportionate among male homosexuals. (p. 11)

In fact, the reaction in the gay community was indeed swift, but startlingly unexpected. Not only did the gay community mobilize to attack GRID, they worked to ensure that GRID would not be perceived—by either the medical profession or the public—as in any way related directly to their sexual way of life. Homosexuals indeed needed protection from illness, but that became only a third priority. The second priority was to keep gays from strong disapproval and hatred, and the first priority was to protect homosexuality itself as a perfectly, normal, and safe way of life.

Massive interventions were designed and funded to a greater extent than with any other illness, but none (p. 15) were allowed to target the number-one risk factor itself, homosexuality. Even treatment to help those homosexuals who fervently wished to change came under fierce attack, regardless of the dramatic—indeed, potentially life-saving—benefit afforded by even modest success.

So the first move in the early eighties was to eliminate the earlier name of the condition. Because under the right circumstances the virus was transmissible to anyone, pressure was swiftly generated to rename “gay-related immune disorder” to AIDS: “Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.” Though the connection to homosexuality is universally understood to be valid and medical literature still speaks of homosexuality as the major risk factor for AIDS, the fact that gay male anal intercourse and promiscuity created the American reservoir for HIV (the pathogen that causes AIDS)—and continues to preserve it—quickly became an unspeakable truth (p. 16)

A publication of the American Psychiatric Association reported, “We’re ‘homosexualized’ AIDS and ‘AIDS-ified’ homosexuality,” just as though “we” did it, and that the connection were not a self-evident feature of the condition itself. In short, the response to AIDS was politicized from the start.

On the other hand, the politicized form of intervening has not been nearly successful enough among homosexuals. Indeed, the homosexual community has paid the highest price. Fifteen years into the epidemic (1995) the American Psychiatric Association Press reports that “30 percent of all 20-year-old gay men will be HIV positive or dead of AIDS by the time they are 30” because they are resuming “unsafe sex” any way. (p. 17)

Postscript:

It has been over fourteen years since I stood in that New York apartment reading about the death of my gifted patient.

But since then my mood has changed. I have been extraordinarily fortunate to have met many people who have emerged from the gay life. When I see the personal difficulties they have squarely faced, the sheer courage they have displayed not only in facing these difficulties but also in confronting a culture that uses every possible means to deny the validity of their values, goals, and experiences, I truly stand back in wonder. Certainly they have forced me by the simple testimony of their lives to return again and again to my own self-examination. It is these people—former homosexuals and those still struggling, all across America and abroad—who stand for me as a model of everything good and possible in a world that takes the human heart, and the God of that heart, seriously. In my various explorations within the worlds of psychoanalysis, psychotherapy, and psychiatry, I have simply never before seen such profound healing. (p. 249)

Because it is not really a battle over mere sexuality, but rather over which spirit shall claim our allegiance, the cultural and political battle over homosexuality has become in many respects the defining moment for our society. It has implications that go far beyond the surface matter of “gay rights.” And so the more important dimension of this battle is not the political one, it is the one for the individual human soul. It would be easy in this modern era, when our vision for things invisible is so easily blinded by the dazzling allure of our material accomplishment, to not even take the soul—and her loving, watchful, worried Shepherd—seriously. But the soul that emerges in the lives of those who have successfully struggled with homosexuality, and the soul that is in the process of emerging in those who struggle still, is so beautiful that at one stroke her emergence into sight, even dimly, simply shatters the false dazzle of modernity. There is nothing to compare with being present as the skylark takes wing once again, restored to her glorious coat of feathers. (p. 250)

And so, as dangerous a moment as this one may be, when so much of our inheritance stands in the balance, there is a great hope as well. Slowly but surely, the great truths that have embodied themselves in the lives of these men and women –after terrible struggle—will be made widely known. More and more people will themselves gain the courage to return home from their long and fruitless wanderings in the wasteland of modern sophistication, however painful that return may be. It is our joyful duty to stand waiting, with open arms, remembering that we too are journeying home.” (p.250)

(Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., “Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth”, Baker Books, 1996)

The question raised by the Archbishop of Canterbury, in his recent visit to Canada, was “What are the forms of behaviour the church has the freedom to bless, and be faithful to Scripture, tradition and reason?”

When considering the contents of this letter, and seeking the Lord’s guidance, I found the ABC’s reference concerning our need to “be faithful to Scripture, tradition and reason” most timely and helpful, when we hear so much talk these days on seeking the Spirit’s leading largely through experience only—with little reference to “Scripture, tradition and reason”, which has been the Anglican way during past centuries.

In other words, the ABC was saying that the church cannot please itself on the question sexuality, or any other subject, concerning what it can, or cannot bless, but must seek to “be faithful to Scripture, tradition and reason.”

The purpose of this present “Open Letter” is to inform our Bishops, in the most compact manner possible, why I believe “homosexual practice is incompatible with Scripture”, and why our General Synod “cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions.” (1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10)

Please note: During the past ten years I have written and circulated three documents on “homosexuality” to leaders and key people in our Anglican Church of Canada. Namely,

1. “Reconsidering the 1979 Guidelines on Homosexuality” – as updated in October, 1997 (34 pages).

2. “A Position Paper concerning the ‘blessing of committed same-sex unions’, and things that can be done to prevent the homosexual lobby, taking over our Anglican Church of Canada” in November 2003. (82 pages).

3. “An Open Letter to the Canadian House of Bishops” written prior to the General Synod, in St. Catharine’s in May/June, 2004 (24 pages).

These three papers are available on www.takebackcanada.com/dennis

THE VERDICT OF SCRIPTURE

When all is said and done, I think all of us must come to the same conclusion, that regardless of our different views on the rightness or wrongness of homosexual practice, all of us must look to trustworthy theologians for their scholarship, expertise and insights in placing before us the true and balanced teaching on the subject of “homosexuality” in the Scriptures, in the Old and New Testaments.

In deciding which theologians we will look to, and trust, almost certainly this will be determined by our individual backgrounds of parishes where we were brought up, the theological college we attended if we are in Ordained ministry, our own private/personal study and research, and also the comments and influences of others with whom we keep in contact, and respect.

My own background was that of a moderate churchmanship in London, England, and after conversion to Christ, studying theology at Wycliffe College, Toronto, and nearly 50 years of study in the writings and sermons of conservative scholars and preachers.

I have been influenced by Rev. Dr. J. R. W. Stott; Rev. Dr. J. I. Packer; Rev. Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones; Rev. Dr. Harold J. Ockenga; Dr. Edith Humphrey; Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon; Dr. Jeffrey Satinover.; Dr. Paul Cameron.

The views of these godly men and women, I believe can be summarized in the words of the Rev. John Stott, in the following words:

“The negative prohibitions of homosexual practices in Scripture make sense only in the light of its positive teaching in Genesis 1 and II about human sexuality and heterosexual marriage.”

“Yet without the wholesome positive teaching of the Bible on sex and marriage, our perspective on the homosexual question is bound to be skewed.”

“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24)

Jesus Himself endorsed this teaching (Genesis 2:24) declaring that a lifelong union between a man and his wife was God’s intention from the beginning (Mark 10:4-9) “What God has joined together, let man not separate.”

Scripture defines the marriage God instituted in terms of heterosexual monogamy.

Scripture envisages no other kind of marriage or sexual intercourse, for God provided no alternative.

…the only ‘one flesh’ experience which God intends, and Scripture contemplates, is the sexual union of a man and his wife, whom he recognizes as “flesh of his flesh.”

“homosexual practice must be regarded, in the whole biblical revelation, not as a variant within the wide range of accepted normality, but as a deviation from God’s norm, and we should call homosexually-oriented people to abstain from homosexual practices and partnerships.”

Dr. Elizabeth Moberly – her research has led her to say “a homosexual orientation does not depend on genetic predisposition, hormonal imbalance or abnormal learning processes, but on difficulties in the parent-child relationship, especially in the earlier years of life.”

(Rev. J.R.W. Stott, “Involvement: Being a Responsible Christian in a Non-Christian Society” (Vol. 2) Fleming H. Revell Company, Old Tappan, New Jersey, 1985 pages 226-241)

A detailed study of the main Scriptural texts on the subject of “homosexuality” appear in my Paper 3 (pages 1-9) mentioned above and found at www.takebackcanada.com/dennis3.doc.

THE HISTORIC TRADITION OF THE CHURCH

“The issue of church tradition in the last two millennia (2,000 years) is not treated here largely because it is well known that, until the last few decades, the church has maintained a consistent stance against homosexual behaviour as sin.”

(Dr. Robert A.J. Gagnon “The Bible and Homosexual Practice,” Abingdon Press, Nashville, 2001, pp 343/7)

If we take the time to look at the history of the Christian Church we find that the above statement is true, for the Church Elders have consistently been adamant in their condemnation of homosexual acts between two men or two women.

Church leaders, Councils and Constitutions, alike, from the second to nineteenth centuries, all condemn homosexual acts.

Some of their comments include, “a form of exploitation,” “Contrary to nature condemned,” “satanic,” “wicked,” “monstrous insaneness,” “a traitor to both sexes,” “dreadful crime of unnatural lust,” “a filthy practice not to be named.”

Punishments include “deserving to be driven out and stoned,” “Clergy to be degraded, exiled and damned,” “beaten with rods,” “execution by burning,” “punished by God.”

(Quotations used with permission of Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron, Family Research Institute, Colorado Springs, 2003)

A detailed Table of these comments and condemnations appear in my paper 3 (pages 10-11) as mentioned above or found at www.takebackcanada.com/dennis3.doc.

THE APPEAL TO REASON

In examining subjects under this heading we should remember to be aware that “reason” is also used, under the illumination of the Holy Spirit, when we study the verdict of Scripture, comparing Scripture with Scripture, and when we examine the historic tradition of the church, as we weigh the decisions of church leaders in the past.

Reasons for believing that homosexual acts are wrong and sinful:

1. It is “contrary to nature”

Heterosexual union:

In the Creation Story, God made us “male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). “God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.’” (Genesis 1:28)

God made the sexual organs of men and women to compliment each other, and sexual intercourse can lead to conception, resulting in the birth of children, and the continuation of the human race.

Homosexual union:

When a man has sex with a man it is a totally unnatural act. The male organs of men are not anatomically created for male to male sexual intercourse.

Neither a man’s mouth or his anus (rectum) are complimentary orifices for the male organ.

When the male organ penetrates the anus there is the high risk of damaging/tearing the very thin membrane in the rectal lining. In the rectum can be a mixture of feces, semen, blood and saliva. With, or without, the use of condoms, there is a high risk of disease being spread through “sexually transmitted diseases” (STD).

2. “Committed same-sex unions”(monogamous same-sex relationships)

The proponents for these emphasize the loving, caring and permanency of such relationships and that dangers of infection and disease do not exist, or are greatly reduced.

Dr. Jeffrey Satinover disagrees:

“Although relatively monogamous gay couples are at lower risk for AIDS, they tend to engage in unprotected anal intercourse more frequently than do highly polygamous single homosexuals. As a result, they are at higher risk for non-AIDS conditions – if all other factors were equal, which is usually not the case because of the clustering of risk factors.”

(Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., “Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth,” Baker Books, 1996, p. 67)

3. Some deeply disturbing statistics

IN CANADA, AIDS IS MAINLY A HOMOSEXUAL DISEASE

Federal Centre for AIDS – Those with AIDS

The incidence of AIDS among homosexuals in Canada:

Men: 1987 82.8% - MSM (men who have sex with men)

1988 85.0% - of all AIDS cases were related to homosexuality

1996 78.1% - Due to homosexual activity

2003 77.6% - In Canada, MSM (men who have sex with men) account for the percentage of cumulative AIDS cases among adult males.

1985-2003 - 70.9% of positive HIV test results among adult males – MSM (men who have sex with men).

Increased rates of new HIV infection observed in MSM (men who have sex with men) in some cities of the country in 1999-2000 and levels of risk behaviours continue to be high.

Women: 2003 In Canada, a total of 1,437 AIDS cases and 6,250 HIV cases have been reported in adult women up to June 30, 2002.

Women represent an increasing proportion of reported HIV cases in Canada, and accounted for 26% of positive HIV test reports in the first half of 2002.

Heterosexual contact and injecting drug use are the two major risk factors of HIV in women.

Canadians diagnosed and dying of AIDS:

Some facts:

As of 30 June, 1996, 13,810 Canadians had been diagnosed to have full-blown AIDS and 9,969 of these persons had died (72% of those diagnosed)

From 1996-1999 there was a 30% rise in incident HIV infections among MSM (men who have sex with men) and 27% drop among IDU (injecting drug users) – Health Canada

There was a 24% increase in prevalent infections from 1996-1999. – Health Canada

An estimated 4,190 persons in Canada were newly infected with HIV in 1999.

Health Canada: April 2003

There were an estimated 49,800 living with HIV (including AIDS) infection in Canada at the end of 1999. Of these, approximately 15,000 (or 30%) are not aware of their infection.

Centre for Infectious Disease Prevention and Control

Reported deaths among reported AIDS cases to 2002:

From 1979 – 2002 12,674 (men and women)

4. Estimated number of homosexuals who have already died of AIDS:

The percentage of those with AIDS who come from the male homosexual community varies from 82.8% (1987) to 77.6% (2003).

From 1985-2003, 70.9% of positive HIV test results were among adult males (MSM – men who have sex with men). Let us estimate, conservatively, that 70% of those with AIDS are members of the male homosexual community:

Estimate of homosexuals who have died of AIDS from 1979-2002, therefore is 70% of 12,674 = 8,871 men.

5. Estimated number of homosexuals who will probably die of AIDS in the coming years:

Health Canada: April 2003

There were an estimated 49,800 men and women living with HIV (including AIDS) infection in Canada at end of 1999. Of these, approximately 15,000 (30%) are not aware of their infection.

Under (4) above we estimated that 70% of those with AIDS are members of the male homosexual community.

Estimate of homosexuals who will probably die of AIDS in the coming years, therefore is 70% of 49,800 = 34,860 men.

(While it is not known what percentage of HIV patients become full-blown AIDS patients – some say 20-30%. I have assumed, in time, it will be 100%.)

6. As members of Canadian society, have, seemingly, been ready to accept same-sex gender relationships, in recent years, as evidenced in the legalizing of same-sex marriages in Canada, by the Paul Martin Government, in 2005, so we have seen an explosion in the number of Canadians who have been diagnosed with HIV and AIDS.

1996 (30 June) 13,810 Canadians had been diagnosed to have full-blown AIDS, and 9,969 had died.

1996-1999 There was a 30% rise in incident HIV infections among MSM (men having sex with men).

1999 An estimated 4,190 were newly infected with HIV during this year.

1999 At end of year, an estimated 49,800 were living with HIV (including AIDS) infection in Canada.

Update – Total HIV and AIDS diagnoses to June 2006.

61,423 diagnoses of HIV infection – November 1985 – June, 2006

20,493 diagnoses of AIDS – 1979-2006

HIV diagnoses – 1,232 – January – June 2006

Male 74.3%

Female: 25.7%

- 47% were MSM (men having sex with men)

- 10.3% IDU (injecting drug users)

- 33.5% among heterosexual contact exposure category

(Public Health Agency of Canada. HIV and AIDS in Canada Surveillance Report to June 30, 2006)

7. Unbelievable health costs in caring for homosexuals who become HIV/AIDS patients.

While our first concern for those who are sick with HIV/AIDS should always be for their relief from this deadly disease, and their personal well-being, we should also be aware that had they not pursued their homosexual life style, they would, in all probability, not have this disease at the present time.

The estimated cost of caring for persons with HIV/AIDS, from the time they become sick, until the time of their death is $130,000, per person.

From 1979-2002 – reported deaths among AIDS cases was 12,674 – of that number, an estimated 70% were homosexuals (i.e.) 8,871 men.

Estimated health costs $1,153,230,000

By 1996 (30 June) 13,810 Canadians had been diagnosed to have full-flown AIDS and 9,969 had died; of this number, an estimated 70% were homosexuals (i.e.) 6,978 men.

Estimated health costs $907,140,000

In 1999 an estimated 4,190 were newly infected with HIV during this year alone.

If 70% were homosexuals – 2,933 will die some time in the future.

Estimated health costs $381,290,000

1999 at end of year, an estimated 49,800 were living with HIV (including AIDS) infection in Canada.

If 70% are homosexual, then 34,860 will die some time in the future.

Estimated health costs $4,531,800,000

8. In Canada, how many may be living in monogamous same-sex, loving, caring and continuing relationships?

CENSUS: 2001, those who reported to be living in homosexual partnerships:

Same-sex couples living together:

Male: 19,000

Female: 15,200

34,200

0.5% (1 in 200) of all couples in Canada, married and common-law, are same-sex couples.

Nearly 3% (34,200) of all common-law couples (1,158,410) declare themselves as gay or lesbian.

9. The Gay Lifespan

“The typical lifespan of homosexuals suggests that their activities are more destructive than smoking and as dangerous as drugs.

6,737 obituaries from 18 US homosexual journals over the past 13 years were compared to a large sample of obituaries from regular newspapers. The obituaries from the regular newspapers were similar to US averages for longevity: the median age of death of married men was 75 and 80% of them died old (age 65 or older). For unmarried or divorced men the median age of death was 57 and 32% of them died old. Married women average age 79 at death. 85% died old. Unmarried and divorced women average age 71 and 61% of them died old.

The median age of death for homosexuals, however, was virtually the same nationwide—and, overall, less than 2% survived to old age. If AIDS was the cause of death, the median age was 39. For the 829 gays who died of something other than AIDS, the median age of death was 42 and 9% died old. The 163 lesbians had a median age of death of 44 and 20% died old.

(Cameron P., Playfair W. & Wellum S. The Longevity of Homosexuals: Before and After the AIDS Epidemic. Omega 1994 (in press) Dr. Paul Cameron, Chairman, “Medical Consequences of What Homosexuals Do”, Family Research Institute, Inc. 1992 educational pamphlet.)

The proposed Motion from the Council of General Synod

“The blessing of same-sex unions is consistent with the core doctrine of the Anglican Church of Canada” is a total betrayal of all that our Anglican Church has stood for, for the following reasons:

DOCTRINALLY:

1. It is a plain denial of Bible truths, where every reference to homosexuality is a negative one; as far as the Bible is concerned the acts of homosexuality are wrong, sinful and unholy.

2. It denies 2000 years of the historic tradition of the Church; “until the last few decades, the Church has maintained a consistent stance against homosexual behaviour as sin.” (*Dr. Robert Gagnon, pp 343/4)

3. Same-sex unions are contrary to nature. “The straightforward declaration that God created male and female for sexual union and blessed that union, and no other, with the capacity to be fruitful and multiply leaves same-sex unions without place in the structure imbedded by God in creation.” (*Dr. Robert Gagnon, p. 156)

(*Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon “The Bible and Homosexual Practice”, Abingdon Press, Nashville 2001)

4. The foundations of our Faith will be gone. When I was made a Deacon in 1959, and later priested in 1960, on both occasions, in the presence of the Bishop of Fredericton, the Rt. Rev. A. Henry O’Neil, I was required to place my thumb on a seal on the documents and commit myself to:

§ The Holy Bible

§ The Book of Common Prayer (which included the Thirty-Nine Articles and Solemn Declaration of 1893)

§ Episcopal Obedience – in all things lawful

Members of the House of Bishops, ordained around this time, would also have given these solemn undertakings, to the bishops of their Dioceses.

If the General Synod approved of the hallowing/blessing of monogamous same-sex partnerships, which would open the way for the ordination of practising gay men and lesbian women, in the Anglican Church of Canada, I believe we will have broken faith with the three-fold solemn undertakings stated above:

o THE HOLY BIBLE

-by any balanced reading of the Scriptures we will have turned our backs on the foundation of our Faith—the Bible; those who know the Scriptures would not take our words seriously if we insisted in stating that the Bible truths were still our foundation in matters of faith and practice.

o the book of common prayer

-we could no longer say that we believed in

Article 6 – the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for salvation

Article 9 – concerning the nature of sin

Article 20 – and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s Word written…

Solemn Declaration of 1893 - we could not say “we receive the same Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments…”

o Episcopal Obedience

-how could a Rector/Incumbent who remained faithful to the Bible, work alongside an Associate Priest ordained by the Bishop, who was living in a same-sex relationship and bringing his/her partner to church gatherings, and preaching in favour of practising homosexuals? - such a situation would be quite untenable.

General Synod, will have effectively, dismantled/negated the foundations of our Faith, which were gladly embraced and followed by our forbears.

5. Large numbers of our, already limited, –size Congregations will be affronted

Tens of thousands of faithful Anglican parishioners, who still believe that sodomy and same-sex relations are wrong, will be forced to make choices for their futures.

§ Will they leave the Anglican Church of Canada, and seek another Christian denomination?

§ Will they insist that a practising homosexual