- Status
G
Good_Tidings
Guest
It appears that the agency lost a good man. I wonder which Catholic defense group drove him out.
I
InigoMontoya
Guest
Not sure what to think about this. Other than I pray that his time spent with the agency perhaps sparked a flame in his heart.
C
Corki
Guest
What “drove him out” was his public admission that he was advocating againt the Church and her teachings. For some reason, he thought that he would still be allowed in leadership of a Catholic organization when he was leading a very anti-Catholic public life. He was wrong.
And no, the agency did not “lose a good man”. He may be a good person, but he was completely unqualified for leadership in a Catholic organization.
I
InigoMontoya
Guest
The article doesn’t mention that he was drove out or force out? In fact some of the articles online have specifically stated that his lifestyle was widely known throughout most of his career at CRS. Even the above mentioned article actually states that CRS didn’t have an issue with him not being Catholic and living that life style, as he was in financial administration not missionary or field services.
S
swanlinnet
Guest
He wasn’t “Driven out” at all.
And his psychological disorder of homosexuality would not have been a bar to him working either.
The man was not Catholic .
All told, it could have been that he needed to be in a workplace where he could be amongst people of the same dubious, sexual, persuasion.
And his psychological disorder of homosexuality would not have been a bar to him working either.
The man was not Catholic .
All told, it could have been that he needed to be in a workplace where he could be amongst people of the same dubious, sexual, persuasion.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Hopefully, he’ll get a better job somewhere else…
C
craighundelt
Guest
Thanks be to God for the resignation of this VP. A practicing gay as vice president of CRS is scandalous, The hiring of this guy was serious mistake of judgment that runs contrary to authentic Catholic teachings. This sordid affair of CRS is a classic fault ( moral relativism) of our culture to mistake phony tolerance as an alibi for inaction in the face of evil. The gay lifestyle is gravely immoral, has serious health consequences, promotes rampant narcissism, sexually addictive, and exploits children, unsuspecting teenagers, and misinformed parents.
C
CatholicWhovian
Guest
From what I know when the Catechism of the Catholic Church describes homosexuality as disordered it means a deviation from the moral order, not a psychological disorder. Most if not all people with same-sex attraction (or people who call themselves homosexuals) are mentally sound; they just were or are involved in a lifestyle that’s dangerous, which they chose with a sound mind - albeit an ill-informed sound mind. The Church doesn’t dabble with psychology because it’s not its field of study.
In that respect would you call alcoholism a psychological disorder?
N
Neofight
Guest
Some of the claims in this post is as uncatholic as the perceived faults of the CRS employee; especially revolting are the comments in the last sentence.
C
CatholicWhovian
Guest
On my second read of the last sentence it seems that it does sound a bit harsh. Yeah, the gay lifestyle is dangerous, but the words chosen are a bit too harsh and too exaggerated.Some of the claims in this post is as uncatholic as the perceived faults of the CRS employee; especially revolting are the comments in the last sentence.
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
Was he VP of the entire organization? Or VP of just the overseas finance division? The article states he had worked for CRS for 16 yrs most recently as VP of overseas finance. 16 yrs on the job must mean CRS was happy with his job performance… But like Thorolfr, I hope he gets a better one for him.
S
swanlinnet
Guest
Hello Catholic Whovian.
Since psychology is the study of human behaviour it is fair to describe sodomy as a psychological disorder depending, that is, upon which school of thought you have been reading.
I should have added that a psychological disorder is a lack of sound intellect. On this note, a madman… or a person engaging in sodomy… by virtue of their aims in life do not differentiate between what is moral or what is psychologically deficient in their actions.
Our aims in life are what we plan to do from one moment to the next. They demand consent from the intellect. A madman whose intellect is lacking in sound judgement acts in a psychologically deficient and immoral way. He may kill his neighbour and he may throw himself off a bridge. And as the Socratic paradox explains: “No man knowingly acts against his own best interest”.
The madman and the homosexual do not ‘deviate’ from their aims in life since both show a lack of understanding or a disregard for what they are doing. In other words, there is no impulse of conscience coupled with a sound understanding of right and wrong to keep them on the right path.
In using the word ‘homosexual’ here I am referring, of course, to a man whose objective aim is to sodomise another man. He keeps to his plan. He does not recoil in much the same way the madman persists in his own immoral and psychological wanting behaviour.
A person who submits his intellect to the teaching of The Church sins when he departs from his aim of keeping faithful to its teaching. Yet a homosexual will not submit his intellect to the teaching of the Church… first by dint of sodomy and secondly by his insistence to please himself and decide for himself just what constitutes sin.
Again I am not speaking of the minority of men who do have homosexual tendencies and who admirably and courageously resist or confess this sin. These men are shining beacons of hope in our present age.
And so you are right, Catholic Whovian, in saying that homosexuals are ‘mentally sound’ since they fulfil their objective aim of buggery with full consent from their intellect.
Hope this helps.
Vincent.
P.S. I would call ‘alcoholism’ a word that attempts to describe addiction.
Since psychology is the study of human behaviour it is fair to describe sodomy as a psychological disorder depending, that is, upon which school of thought you have been reading.
I should have added that a psychological disorder is a lack of sound intellect. On this note, a madman… or a person engaging in sodomy… by virtue of their aims in life do not differentiate between what is moral or what is psychologically deficient in their actions.
Our aims in life are what we plan to do from one moment to the next. They demand consent from the intellect. A madman whose intellect is lacking in sound judgement acts in a psychologically deficient and immoral way. He may kill his neighbour and he may throw himself off a bridge. And as the Socratic paradox explains: “No man knowingly acts against his own best interest”.
The madman and the homosexual do not ‘deviate’ from their aims in life since both show a lack of understanding or a disregard for what they are doing. In other words, there is no impulse of conscience coupled with a sound understanding of right and wrong to keep them on the right path.
In using the word ‘homosexual’ here I am referring, of course, to a man whose objective aim is to sodomise another man. He keeps to his plan. He does not recoil in much the same way the madman persists in his own immoral and psychological wanting behaviour.
A person who submits his intellect to the teaching of The Church sins when he departs from his aim of keeping faithful to its teaching. Yet a homosexual will not submit his intellect to the teaching of the Church… first by dint of sodomy and secondly by his insistence to please himself and decide for himself just what constitutes sin.
Again I am not speaking of the minority of men who do have homosexual tendencies and who admirably and courageously resist or confess this sin. These men are shining beacons of hope in our present age.
And so you are right, Catholic Whovian, in saying that homosexuals are ‘mentally sound’ since they fulfil their objective aim of buggery with full consent from their intellect.
Hope this helps.
Vincent.
P.S. I would call ‘alcoholism’ a word that attempts to describe addiction.
A
Abynissa
Guest
I agree with this. The rampant sexual partners among homosexuals is well documented. It’s amazing how the focus is on one instead of those who now must grievously suffer for allowing such a person to part of a Catholic Agency… An agency that should abide by the teachings of the magisterium of the Church. How many Catholic take offense and thier beliefs shaken by allowing someone that is not Catholic and who is practicing such a sinful lifestyle. There is no moral relativism. St. Paul warns in Galations 5:9 that “A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.”
There seems to be an activist agenda to undermine Catholic Teaching by working for this agency. Wouldn’t Catholics wonder if the Church was giving implicit assent to his lifestyle?
C
CatholicWhovian
Guest
I’m not reading the Church’s teaching on homosexuality in light of psychology or any psychological school of thought. I’m reading it in a moral, theological sense because the Church uses theological language to describe homosexual inclinations. “Disorder” in a sense is, like what I said, the deviation from the moral order God has put in place, which is sexual intercourse between a man and a woman within the context of marriage in which the act is open to life.
It seems your argument is a bit pseudo-materialist, in that you combined the fields of psychology and moral theology in a way in which they’re not supposed to be together. I think the issue here is moral culpability. If you are aware that you are committing grave sin, you are morally culpable of the act. Usually when someone has a psychological act they’re not aware of their actions, and therefore they are not morally culpable. I think you’re referring to an ill-informed conscience, in which a person is taught or self-taught that what he or she is doing is morally good. This is within the field of moral theology has nothing to do with any form of psychological behavior. A person can have an ill-informed conscience and still be psychologically sound.
Although there is a psychological theory wherein homosexual tendencies are developed because of habits over time, and there would come a point wherein the person with homosexual tendencies would engage in homosexual acts without the full knowledge of their depravity. A bit similar to addiction.
Which begs the question: is addiction a form of psychological disorder?
Considering your argument, wouldn’t it be possible for a homosexual to turn his or her back from a sinful lifestyle and be in line and following the teaching of the Church? I’ve read stories of homosexual men who have departed completely from the gay lifestyle without any major psychological therapy involved. And yet they have followed the Church’s teachings and lived them out because of their conversion of heart and new and fruitful dedication to Christ. Would you consider them still having psychological problems?
I guess I have to stop my replies to you here. I might derail the thread.
J
J_Peterson
Guest
Lepanto Institute.
S
swanlinnet
Guest
Hello Catholic Whovian
You say:-
“It seems your argument is a bit pseudo-materialist, in that you combined the fields of psychology and moral theology in a way in which they’re not supposed to be together.”
“they’re not supposed to be combined together” ? Says who ?
" …there would come a point wherein the person with homosexual tendencies would engage in homosexual acts without the full knowledge of their depravity. "
Once again, says who ?
“Considering your argument, wouldn’t it be possible for a homosexual to turn his or her back from a sinful lifestyle and be in line and following the teaching of the Church?”
Yes of course. I have already affirmed this in my original post ! You might want to see this web site. courage.org.uk/articles/articles.asp?CID=2
Finally you ask:-
" is addiction a form of psychological disorder?"
In all cases of addiction three disparate elements have to be present. They are:-
a) The ingestion or infusion of an addicting substance. (Matter)
b) A desire (choice) or necessity (compulsion) to ingest such a substance.
c) A demonstrable withdrawal syndrome, once the infusion/ingestion is ended.
If either one of these three elements is absent, then a person is not in the state of addiction.
As for so-called sex addiction, food addiction, et al …these are simply misuses of the word addiction.
You say:-
“It seems your argument is a bit pseudo-materialist, in that you combined the fields of psychology and moral theology in a way in which they’re not supposed to be together.”
“they’re not supposed to be combined together” ? Says who ?
Code:
andOnce again, says who ?
“Considering your argument, wouldn’t it be possible for a homosexual to turn his or her back from a sinful lifestyle and be in line and following the teaching of the Church?”
Yes of course. I have already affirmed this in my original post ! You might want to see this web site. courage.org.uk/articles/articles.asp?CID=2
Finally you ask:-
" is addiction a form of psychological disorder?"
In all cases of addiction three disparate elements have to be present. They are:-
a) The ingestion or infusion of an addicting substance. (Matter)
b) A desire (choice) or necessity (compulsion) to ingest such a substance.
c) A demonstrable withdrawal syndrome, once the infusion/ingestion is ended.
If either one of these three elements is absent, then a person is not in the state of addiction.
As for so-called sex addiction, food addiction, et al …these are simply misuses of the word addiction.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Except that most professional psychiatrists and psychologists do not consider homosexuality to be a psychological disorder.
S
swanlinnet
Guest
They get their ‘professional’ title by toeing the party line …not by doing much thinking for themselves. Rock the boat in medicine or science and you are at once branded a quack.Except that most professional psychiatrists and psychologists do not consider homosexuality to be a psychological disorder.
You get the same dull compliance in most so-called professions. It is not a coincidence how most teachers, psychiatrists and policemen do not consider homosexuality to be a disorder either. For most of them would have already considered the consequences of dissent.
- Status