Imagine this Conversation
Monsignor (Msgr): She was quite distressed.
Priest: You spoke with her?
Msgr: I listened.
Priest: And you think I can help her?
Msgr: I think you can help me to help her.
Priest: How may I help you?
Msgr: What do you know of her son?
Priest: I haven’t seen him since his high school graduation. That’s a number of years ago. He’s out of college now and living in the city.
Msgr: Ahh, the city. The lure of the city. Can anything good come from the city?
Priest: Monsignor, if he’s in the city he’s probably immersed in the gay subculture.
Msgr: Yes, I imagine he is.
Priest: Which means his mother’s distress is warranted.
Msgr: Yes, I suppose it is. But I wish to help her as much as I can. And here I have a question for you. The mother has deep misgivings about her husband—about his relationship or lack thereof with the son. She worries that the boy is gay because the father was emotionally unavailable if not hostile toward him. What do you think of that?
Priest: I think there could be something to it.
Msgr: I think the poor woman thinks like that, but then she makes things worse.
Priest: Monsignor, I wouldn’t dismiss her perspective out of hand. There may be something to it.
Msgr: As a matter of fact, I don’t dismiss what she is saying. But I wondered what you would say. For that matter, what would your friend say?
Priest: My friend the psychologist?
Msgr: Yes. He.
Priest: Monsignor, I don’t know what he’d say in this case.
Msgr: But you speak to him about these things, don’t you?
Priest: Yes, in general.
Msgr: And what does he say in general?
Priest: He would probably say there’s a correlation between two facts in an individual’s life: having an emotionally cold father and having homosexual experience.
Msgr: ‘Correlation’.—That’s a psychological word.
Priest: It’s a preferred word in scientific circles.
Msgr: It’s not the same as causation.
Priest: Correct. But in real life the two things aren’t far apart—the emotionless father and the gay son.
Msgr: They’re far enough apart for my purposes.
Priest: Which are?
Msgr: To relieve the woman’s distress. I think parents need to be reassured that they don’t cause their children to be gay. And this mother needs to know that her husband is not the reason why her son is gay.
Priest: Even if the father was emotionally abusive?
Msgr: ‘Abusive’?—That’s a strong word.
Priest: Ok. ‘Neglectful’.
Msgr: That’s rather tame.
Priest: Then how do you name it?
Msgr: I’m just being temperate in my choice of words. I advise the same. I’ve seen this family over the years. I would call it ‘profound neglect’. The father neglected the boy emotionally. Out of habit. Not intentionally. He appears to have been the same way toward his wife too. But whereas she’s an adult and could cope with him, the boy was vulnerable and could not. But for the mother’s concern, the boy’s revolt could be worse. In any case, it’s a sad state of affairs.
Priest: Sad—yes. But is the father off the hook for alienating his son like that?
Msgr: Many a wound originates in the family. But we can’t say there was intentionality there. The father’s aloofness was likely not intentional. And, let’s be clear, it doesn’t explain the boy’s homosexuality.
Priest: I’d say it’s connected to it.
Msgr: But it doesn’t explain it.
Priest: Well then, what does?
Msgr: Good question, Father. Of course, if it’s causation you’re inquiring about, let’s not forget our training here. Remember what we were taught about human freedom and volition?
Priest: In morality class?
Msgr: Where else?
[Conversations to be continued.]