I need help with something

[Michael19682]

I mean no offense to homosexuals here; we are just discussing issues.

 

[carguy]

It is not normal or moral. We live in an age that sadly has lost most of our morals. It is popular and “normal” for people to have lots of premarital sex with many different people, but is this right? We know the answer is it is wrong. I think you need to find better friends, I have walked away from friends that I have felt are a bad influence on my because I didn’t want to be tempted to do things that I know are wrong.

 

[bmullins]

True friends don’t gang up on you and make you feel like a bad person for your beliefs. They might discuss why they don’t agree, even have some good healthy arguments, but they don’t belittle you for your beliefs. I have many friends who don’t agree with me. I have many acquaintances who turn it into a shouting match.

As to the feeling attracted part, for some people this is a normal feeling. It’s not a sin to feel the attraction, it’s a sin to act on it. You can have male friends that you are very fond of. I have many who I consider as close a friend as I can have besides my wife. My buddy Mike and I grew up together and he is one of my best friends. We have no secrets. I don’t know that I am ‘attracted’ to him, but I am fond of him. I miss him from time to time, and enjoy our talks and hanging out. (He lives 600 miles away.)

The very state of being homosexual is not a sin. I don’t understand it personally. But the feeling of attraction, the feeling of the urge is not a sin. It’s how we handle that urge. As a man who has been addicted I know sometimes we feel things that urge us to do things we don’t want to do. That’s not a sin. It’s when we dwell on them, fantasize about them, want them… do them… That’s when it becomes sin.

 

[Andromedus]

My “friends” are just being very aggressive in their arguments, and they’re always putting me down in my beliefs. I really can’t counter three or more people telling me my beliefs are wrong. Even though I would do anything to defend Jesus and God.

Well, try to avoid or try to change the subject when you talk to them. If that does not work you can always say that you don’t see any meaning in discussing it since you will not get anywhere anyway and you will only repeat what you have said earlier. Of course I don’t know if that is true in your case, but you can always say it.

 

[rom422]

On moral grounds you are correct. God’s laws are good. However, I don’t quite understand the indissoluble connection you draw between God’s good laws of morality and the definition of “normality”.

I will show you the connection between God’s moral laws and normality shortly. But let me first distinguish between the mathematical norm and the ethical norm.

A mathematical norm usually means the average. For example, if you have a class of people with an average height of 5’-5”, then you might say that the normal height is 5’-5.” That is the mathematical norm.

Let’s now talk about the ethical norm. An ethical norm is a model of conduct, or a standard of morality. The ethical standard or norm of human conduct is God’s moral law. A human act is said to be good or bad depending on whether or not it conforms with God’s moral law. A human act is judged to be morally right or morally wrong depending on whether it agrees, or does not agree, with God’s eternal law. If this is the case, then what makes a human act morally right is not whether an average number of people is doing it, but whether or not the act itself conforms with the norm, which is God’s moral law. The morality of a human act is being measured by its own standard, not by the statistical frequency of the people doing the act. The moral norm has nothing to do with the average behavior of a group of people. Indeed, right would be right even if nobody is right. And wrong would be wrong even if everybody is wrong.

You said you don’t understand the indissoluble connection that I draw between God’s good laws of morality and the definition of “normality”? Of course you will not understand it as long as your idea of normality is limited to mathematical normality. But we are not talking about mathematics here. We are talking about ethics. From the standpoint of ethics or morality, I say that, based on Church teaching, homosexual activities are a violation of God’s laws; therefore, they are NOT morally normal.

This is a very solid response you give. I’m stumped except on one account. And that account is not a thought I haven’t heard before. Jesus included tax collectors and sinners among those with whom he sat at table.

True, Christ sat at table with sinners; but that does not mean that He condoned their sins. Do you remember that He also overturned the money changers’ tables in the Temple (Mark 11:15)? He was angry at them for converting God’s Temple into a marketplace. This goes to show that Christ was tolerant of sinners, but He did not tolerate their sins.

Therefore, we must do the same. We must be tolerant of homosexuals, because they, too, are children of God. But we must not tolerate their sins and homosexual activities (e.g., sodomy).

 

[Michael19682]

rom422:

True, Christ sat at table with sinners; but that does not mean that He condoned their sins. Do you remember that He also overturned the money changers’ tables in the Temple (Mark 11:15)? He was angry at them for converting God’s Temple into a marketplace. This goes to show that Christ was tolerant of sinners, but He did not tolerate their sins.

Dear Rom, I think Timothy clarified why Jesus could possibly have did what he did (just outside) the temple area (which was not the true temple, which was his body):

1 Timothy 6:9-11

9 Those who want to be rich are falling into temptation and into a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires, which plunge them into ruin and destruction.
10 For the love of money is the root of all evils, and some people in their desire for it have strayed from the faith and have pierced themselves with many pains.
11 But you, man of God, avoid all this. Instead, pursue righteousness, devotion, faith, love, patience, and gentleness.

and

Therefore, we must do the same…

.

Protect the children of God as best we can from committing the sins of their parents that lead one to make the most unwise of choices.

"By their fruits you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? "
Mt 7:16

 

[Mystic_Banana]

My “friends” are just being very aggressive in their arguments, and they’re always putting me down in my beliefs. I really can’t counter three or more people telling me my beliefs are wrong. Even though I would do anything to defend Jesus and God.

yes, I’ve tried arguing with a group of 4 angry atheist chums once - while we were all very drunk. That was fun! Still, could have been worse, could have been sober…even more brilliant was the meal out which turned out to be populated by 4 evangelical atheist and someone else who kept pretty quiet… left me fuming as they just spouted innaccuracy after innaccuracy after shallow fabrication after… and I didn’t argue so as to avoid another slagging match…

Sometimes, if people gang up on you aggressively, tell them to shut up and leave it until they can manage to argue more reasonably!

“One at a time, ladies, please!”

Actually casually defended the genetic basis of homosexuality recently, only to be challenged, looked it up, and couldn’t find any… the only evidence I found was to do with family trends, which quite frankly can be just as easily explained by a couple of social stereotypes about extended families… seemed remarkably weak considering how much it’s accepted to have a natural basis. Anyone know of any better evidence??? For some reason, I thought they’d at least found a ‘gay’ gene or something, not that that would be so convincing anymore…

 

[essie7777]

Having homosexual tendencies is not a sin, but a psychological condition.

There is plenty of moral Church teachings against homosexual marriage; plenty of Church teachings about pre-marital sex as well as the sanctity of marriage - all of which explain why we are, as a faith, opposed to homosexual marriage.

However, i have yet to see any church document, or authoritative secular document for that matter, which says homosexuality is a psychological condition.

No thread should be promoting extreme unsubstantiated opinion — it’s really not necessary, the Catholic Church teachings stand up on their own.

 

[Michael19682]

There is plenty of moral Church teachings against homosexual marriage; plenty of Church teachings about pre-marital sex as well as the sanctity of marriage - all of which explain why we are, as a faith, opposed to homosexual marriage.

However, i have yet to see any church document, or authoritative secular document for that matter, which says homosexuality is a psychological condition.

No thread should be promoting extreme unsubstantiated opinion — it’s really not necessary, the Catholic Church teachings stand up on their own.

Prior to advances in Psychiatry (whatever that means. Which, I suppose, means advances in the understanding of humans - which, in this case, might be ironic) - homosexuality was *quite authoritatively * diagnosable as a sexual impulse disorder. This stopped in the mid 1970’s. If you haven’t seen this document, it’s likely because you are either not an historian of psychiatry - which would also preclude you being a psychiatrist - or else are too young (as am I) to have knowledge of everything in the world, from the microscopic to the macroscopic, from bacteria to supernova, etc. ect. etc. as is the case with nearly all who practice in these professions.

 

[essie7777]

Prior to advances in Psychiatry (whatever that means. Which, I suppose, means advances in the understanding of humans - which, in this case, might be ironic) - homosexuality was *quite authoritatively * diagnosable as a sexual impulse disorder. This stopped in the mid 1970’s. If you haven’t seen this document, it’s likely because you are either not an historian of psychiatry - which would also preclude you being a psychiatrist - or else are too young (as am I) to have knowledge of everything in the world, from the microscopic to the macroscopic, from bacteria to supernova, etc. ect. etc. as is the case with nearly all who practice in these professions.

You are talking about the American, DSM -the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Disorders - i am fully aware of this as a phd student in clinical psychology.

If you are aware of the manual and this issue with it, you may also know that this was changed mid-edition lifespan in 1974 (no other issue has forced a reprint - they usually get printed, then new content discussed, debated and now treatments are tested as well, for around 10-15 years then they issue the next one!)

This was also the same time that it was required to have substantive peer reviewed criteria of any condition, proving the diagnosis, clinical medical proofs, proven research to substantiate conditions etc. now included in the following DSMs as standard. The “condition of homosexuality” failed on all counts — it was simply urban myth that homosexuality was an abnormal mental disorder

I wouldn’t view its inclusion pre-1974 as authoritative as without this distinction of required and proven peer reviewed research its a foundless myth. Lets not forget this is the same profession who identified Jews by the length of their nose, intelligence by the size of the head. I’m sure you’d agree the profession has moved forward and this is a perfect example of how far.

Notice you didn’t offer a Church reference – there isn’t one is there?

 

[Michael19682]

You are talking about the American, DSM -the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Disorders - i am fully aware of this as a phd student in clinical psychology.

If you are aware of the manual and this issue with it, you may also know that this was changed mid-edition lifespan in 1974 (no other issue has forced a reprint - they usually get printed, then new content discussed, debated and now treatments are tested as well, for around 10-15 years then they issue the next one!)

This was also the same time that it was required to have substantive peer reviewed criteria of any condition, proving the diagnosis, clinical medical proofs, proven research to substantiate conditions etc. now included in the following DSMs as standard. The “condition of homosexuality” failed on all counts — it was simply urban myth that homosexuality was an abnormal mental disorder

I wouldn’t view its inclusion pre-1974 as authoritative as without this distinction of required and proven peer reviewed research its a foundless myth. Lets not forget this is the same profession who identified Jews by the length of their nose, intelligence by the size of the head. I’m sure you’d agree the profession has moved forward and this is a perfect example of how far.

Notice you didn’t offer a Church reference – there isn’t one is there?

Peer reviewed?

Matthew 15:12-17

12 Then his disciples approached and said to him, “Do you know that the Pharisees took offense when they heard what you said?”
13 He said in reply, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted.
14 Let them alone; they are blind guides (of the blind). If a blind person leads a blind person, both will fall into a pit.”

 

[essie7777]

Peer reviewed?

I am assuming your asking what peer reviewing is – if not and your questioning its relevance i apologize for the following explanation.

Peer reviewing puts any scientific opinion through scrutiny by the scientists professional and academic peers.

The DSM is a medical coding and diagnostic reference for qualified and licensed mental health professionals and as such when it use was expanded beyond the original audience of the armed forces in the US, to being a tool used by the profession as a whole, it had to fall into the professions ethical guidelines. Of which scientific research must be assessed before the conclusions are considered proven.

This explains the HUGE revision taken in 1980 to update, clear out and clarify the conditions so they met the standard of scientific proof. This was the period when its use was expanded beyond the military, where it was in essence an internal military document and is now the “go to guide” for diagnosis and statistics for a whole profession; used in all areas of treatment and the codes dictate the bureaucratic billing process as well.

Although it is interesting to note that even before this was revision was completed (it generally takes 10-15 years to update) they introduced a 1974 reprint which took out this homosexual condition and others which were obviously based on human myth rather than science as no evidence was put forward to be scrutinized. This is not something that has been done since.

**Peer reviewing is so important here as this is a medical directory **and it is not the place for unsubstantiated opinion as that can be harmful for patients being treated by the professional based on that type of pseudoscience.

Generally speaking peer review will examine the hypothesis, research data, methodology, the research population and conclusions for flaws, biases and will look to replicate the results. It will also examine the researcher, their credentials, their funding source and their academic or research affiliation. The aim is to be as objective and unbiased as humanly possible when making conclusions. Everything is constantly being refined and examined that is the nature of scientists.

Good research should be able to repeated with the same results - if not it needs to be challenged and further examined to see why not; for example is it the hypothesis, the methodology or the analysis that is wrong?

It is not a quick process, it takes years to be accepted by a academic publication, the standard format for revealing research results. And then it can take up to 18 months for the publications extensive panel of experts in that field to examine and test the research. Then its published and usually that pulls together experts from all over the world across different specialties to examine the content and then move it forward scientifically again.

It’s this constant striving for excellence that helps to ensure the most appropriate definition, diagnosis and treatments are used with patients in need of help. Or at least i firmly believe this.

Matthew 15:12-17

12 Then his disciples approached and said to him, “Do you know that the Pharisees took offense when they heard what you said?”
13 He said in reply, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted.
14 Let them alone; they are blind guides (of the blind). If a blind person leads a blind person, both will fall into a pit.”

Matthew is my personal favorite Gospel in the bible so i can find no fault with what the bible says. My understanding, and i am more than happy to be redirected if this is wrong, of these verses is Jesus in the 1-20 of chpt 15 was in disagreement with the Pharisees over their adherence to their own traditions stating it is against the law of God. Jesus states that only traditions taken from Himself and the apostles are appropriate as they have divine authority and are not human in their origin.

I think i understand the point you are making about following God’s laws, however the Catholic Church has not made any statements that states that someone is suffering a clinical diagnosis of mental illness because they don’t follow the Catholic faith. And this is what the the DSM was doing before this “condition” was removed.

I appreciate i am going to sound mildly ridiculous now - but its like saying that someone using contraception, someone who wants divorce, a person who uses intrusive artificial insemination procedures are suffering clinical diagnosisable mental disorders simply as these actions are against Catholic teaching.

If we allow religious beliefs into scientific medical diagnosis where does it stop? Which faith does the profession use?

I have always believed that someone who doesn’t follow Catholicism is simply currently without the Grace of God and they need to guided to His teachings and love. Is this truly achieved by declaring them to be suffering from a mental disorder such as autism, bipolar, schizophrenia, ADD etc.?

Apologies this is so long … i tried to edit but felt these were important points to put across.

 

[Michael19682]

.

I am assuming your asking what peer reviewing is – if not and your questioning its relevance i apologize for the following explanation.

Peer reviewing puts any scientific opinion through scrutiny by the scientists professional and academic peers.

I know what academic peer review is. The passage from Matthew I quoted below was simply to show that the Pharisees had ‘peer reviewed’ their own practices and the result was contempt for God.

The DSM is a medical coding and diagnostic reference for qualified and licensed mental health professionals

not a word more of this is worth repeating, as it is widely known.

**Peer reviewing is so important here as this is a medical directory **and it is not the place for unsubstantiated opinion as that can be harmful for patients being treated by the professional based on that type of pseudoscience.

Jesus’ words are not unsubstantiated psuedoscience.

I think i understand the point you are making about following God’s laws, however the Catholic Church has not made any statements that states that someone is suffering a clinical diagnosis of mental illness because they don’t follow the Catholic faith.

The medical profession obviously is intergral to the happiness and longevity of many people, enabling some to live and grow, and, yes, be saved by God’s grace, when in ages past their same medical condition might have precluded such a possibility. However, your apotheosis of the clinical diagnosis seems to me to suggest that you are comfortable going in a direction where there is much peril, as the master of that house which you approach has been spoken of and warned of by Jesus himself.

I appreciate i am going to sound mildly ridiculous now - but its like saying that someone using contraception, someone who wants divorce, a person who uses intrusive artificial insemination procedures are suffering clinical diagnosisable mental disorders simply as these actions are against Catholic teaching.

Running the risk of choosing hell as an end of life destination is far worse than having an illness for which there is a cure; like the case of some people with schizophrenia (one of the clinical diagnosibles you mentioned)

If we allow religious beliefs into scientific medical diagnosis where does it stop? Which faith does the profession use?

Why would you want to stop that which heals? You, a professed Catholic ask which faith? There is but one faith, embodied by the people who give it life. Do you count yourself as one of us?

Apologies this is so long … i tried to edit but felt these were important points to put across.

 

[essie7777]

I know what academic peer review is. The passage from Matthew I quoted below was simply to show that the Pharisees had ‘peer reviewed’ their own practices and the result was contempt for God.

As stated i wasn’t clear what you were asking so erred on the side of caution and explained what i meant.

The Pharisees didn’t “peer review” themselves at all. They decided amongst themselves, that they could decide what were the customs of dedication to God, Jesus pointed out the only traditions and customs to follow are based on the words of God. Your correlation seems a leap at best.

I can not find a custom, ceremony or tradition based on the word of God which suggests diagnosising people as mentally ill if they don’t believe in Catholicism. I am more than happy for you to show where i have this wrong?

Jesus’ words are not unsubstantiated psuedoscience

I never said Jesus’ words were pseudoscience, i did said VERY clearly that unsubstantiated conditions that hold no scientific bearing are not appropriate for a scientific MEDICAL directory - those are pseudoscience.

However, your apotheosis of the clinical diagnosis seems to me to suggest that you are comfortable going in a direction where there is much peril, as the master of that house which you approach has been spoken of and warned of by Jesus himself.

I’m pretty sure the Catholic Church doesn’t advocate using Catholic beliefs as method to diagnose medical conditions – if it does i’m happy to be directed to these teachings to read them?

Working as a qualified licensed medical professional is a direction of much peril? Seriously?
I am sure you are aware the St. Luke, the single largest contribution to the New Testament. His written gospel is the longest book in the NT; when we add his second volume, the Acts of the Apostles, his writings account over one-quarter of the NT. He was a doctor, a medical professional, and there is nowhere in the bible or Catholic teaching where his profession is suggested to have a master which isn’t God and Jesus. Again if i am wrong please point this out to me.

Running the risk of choosing hell as an end of life destination is far worse than having an illness for which there is a cure; like the case of some people with schizophrenia (one of the clinical diagnosibles you mentioned)

To confirm you are advocating that “someone using contraception, someone who wants divorce, a person who uses intrusive artificial insemination procedures” (the part of my post #31) should be clinically diagnosised as suffering a mental disorder? If so where is this in Catholic doctrine, teachings, the CCC … any source for guidance on our faith?

Doctors, licensed mental health counselors, psychiatrists, and psychologists (the main users of the DSM) are not trained to minister to people’s spiritual decisions. The only exception being pastoral ministers which follow a different licencee requirements and based on research papers do not tend to work with the mental health issues as defined in the DSM as often as the other listed professionals. They focus on pastoral spiritual care usually in conjunction with the Church of their faith. Are you now suggesting these professionals need to be Catholic? I am confused where you logically take this comment into a real world scenario.

There is no cure for schizophrenia.

Why would you want to stop that which heals?

Medicine and healthcare does not heal a person’s spirit – you seem to be advocating declaring people mentally ill if they don’t believe in Catholicism – is this the case or am i misunderstanding?

Again, the Catholic Church does not attempt to define diagnosis and recommend treatment of healthcare issues so how can you support this position with Church doctrine, teaching or moral law.

You, a professed Catholic ask which faith? There is but one faith, embodied by the people who give it life. Do you count yourself as one of us?

Please do not question my faith with no basis.

It was a valid question. The US is a democracy, an institution the Catholic Church advocates. Are you suggesting that as Catholic we bypass democracy in favor of forcing our faith on people who don’t believe?

Its more than reasonable to suppose if this every came to a public forum that Catholicism would not be the faith of choice as just 23% of the US population are Catholics. So it is not a leap to presume that following your logic it would be a Protestant religion in the majority and then Catholics could well be found to clinically diagnosised as mentally ill for our beliefs that are not in line with the protestant faith.

Can you at least acknowledge that your comments seem to pose more issues than offer a solutions and this may be why the Church doesn’t try and do the medical professionals job when it comes to diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions?

Forcing our faith on people is against the Church teachings. Medical diagnosis is not an appropriate field to use personal choice, which the bible and Church continuously point to as an inherent right of each person, against individuals. Converting people to our Church is not based on taking away free will.

You can not punish and stigmatize someone for what they believe. And lets me honest suggesting people are mentally ill for not being Catholic and diagnosing them medically as this is inherently wrong on all levels.

 

[Michael19682]

essie7777,

First off let me state that my answers from this point forward are shouts in the direction of an image purportedly last seen somewhere near a body of people called the Catholic Church. Since there are many people near me in this house, I can only presume it is not I who is lost; and I do not think I know where you are; only that I could discern no trace of you near me, and if it was your house I had visited, it seems my peace has now returned to me. I thank God for this.

The Pharisees didn’t “peer review” themselves at all. They decided amongst themselves, that they could decide what were the customs of dedication to God, Jesus pointed out the only traditions and customs to follow are based on the words of God. Your correlation seems a leap at best.

I qualified my definition of peer review, as ‘academic’ peer review; when in fact I needn’t have, because the Pharisees did more than peer review their ‘decisions’. Not only did they look for signs in scripture to test the hypothesis that Jesus was Messiah, but they vigorously tested and experimented with Him by numerous questions designed to trip him up. They reviewed evidence, weighed leading opinions conversing among themselves, and generally got it all wrong because because they could not accept that God had done what they had not predicted could be done, or what they had failed to predict; much as do you when you say there is no cure for schizophrenia. There are many cures for it and there are many cured people who have lived with schizophrenia. Your assertion to the contrary proves nothing. And like much of what you have written, is apologetic for various DSM editions, and very obviously so.

I can not find a custom, ceremony or tradition based on the word of God which suggests diagnosing people as mentally ill if they don’t believe in Catholicism. I am more than happy for you to show where i have this wrong?

The central figure of the Catholic faith is the holy Trinity, particularly God’s second person, his only son, Jesus Christ. Even as stated in the Creed, we also believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. If all this be Catholicism, then I would say that those who don’t hold at least some belief in it are definitely as the OT says “sick”, and with “throats that are open graves”.

I never said Jesus’ words were pseudoscience, i did said VERY clearly that unsubstantiated conditions that hold no scientific bearing are not appropriate for a scientific MEDICAL directory - those are pseudoscience.

Perhaps. If you say so now. What can possibly be said that is of no bearing to that type of philosopher called a scientist? As for a medical directory - the DSM versions - it is you who call them in their capacity as science, science, and in their capacity as the political products of compromises in a peer review process, pseudoscience. Yet you deny the Pharisees were scientists in their day?

I’m pretty sure the Catholic Church doesn’t advocate using Catholic beliefs as method to diagnose medical conditions – if it does i’m happy to be directed to these teachings to read them?

As I’ve been reminded by others on this CAF, the Church does put much hope in science. If it is Catholic belief that science can develop means to treat an upset stomach or ulcers, then Catholic beliefs are used to treat and diagnose problems. Possession by demons is another. The Church uses exorcists; the psychiatrists use medicines. Archaeological excavations have shed much light on the traditions of the Church and the scriptures it proclaims.

Working as a qualified licensed medical professional is a direction of much peril? Seriously?

No. It has come to my attention that medical professionals, particularly doctors of medicine, are not so easily found in private practice making the money they deserve for the hard work and dedication that is part and parcel of their training. I was referring to many of the others who are so fond of the word ‘clinical’.

13 No servant can serve two masters. He will either hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon."
14 he Pharisees, who loved money, heard all these things and sneered at him.

To confirm you are advocating that “someone using contraception, someone who wants divorce, a person who uses intrusive artificial insemination procedures” (the part of my post #31) should be clinically diagnosised as suffering a mental disorder?

If that person teaches such to others and altogether refuses correction…you decide for yourself. But since it is not judgment to say so in that case: YES.

Doctors, licensed mental health counselors, psychiatrists, and psychologists (the main users of the DSM) are not trained to minister to people’s spiritual decisions.

Every decision of import should be discerned in one’s spiritiuality. Else it cannot be called a decision per se, but a conditioned reflex of some sort.

There is no cure for schizophrenia

.
You are grossly misinformed.

 

[Michael19682]

Medicine and healthcare does not heal a person’s spirit –

Yet you call Luke a physician? For many, Jesus was also. How do you know what medicine can heal? Is not the person a unity of body, soul and spirit; according to Pope JPII this unity has implications for all facets of life?

Please do not question my faith with no basis.

essie7777,

You yourself said “we”, in your reference to the scientific medical community. I was quite basicially asking whether you consider yourself first a scientist, and second a Catholic, or vice versa. In a reading of your own words there was strong basis for such a question.

So it is not a leap to presume that following your logic it would be a Protestant religion in the majority and then Catholics could well be found to clinically diagnosised as mentally ill for our beliefs that are not in line with the protestant faith.

There was a time in the Archdiocese of NY when being a Catholic priest was a crime. How ever horrific it may sound to you and I, that was history.

You can not punish and stigmatize someone for what they believe. And lets me honest suggesting people are mentally ill for not being Catholic and diagnosing them medically as this is inherently wrong on all levels.

Very intersesting you should glean such a suggestion from my post. You admirably abdicate the throne of force; yet collude with an establishment that forces pills down the throat of many a person with mental illness, the latter of which is nothing other than an expression of individual belief.

 

[essie7777]

Micheal19682

I think you have completely lost track of what this discussion was about and have gone off on very convoluted tangents and TBH i can not keep track of why you have gone down these paths so you are completely losing me.

In the interests of bringing this to a close.
The conversation was on homosexuality being taken from the DSM which is a MEDICAL DIRECTORY OF DIAGNOSIS CRITERIA AND BILLING CODES. Homosexuality does not meet the criteria to be identified as mental health disease. Hence it was removed almost 40 years, it had been included previously in the forerunner of this book which was a military internal document.

Sexual attraction can not be controlled by a pill or in a medical professionals office. The same way for example a heterosexual male can not take a pill to find only females with brunette hair attractive neither can you control someone who finds the same sex attractive with a pill.

And lets not forget that the Church does not condemn or ban homosexuality (the attraction to same sex people). It does ban the illicit act. If anything the mental health field was simply catching up with the Catholic Church when they removed this disorder from the DSM, as from that point forward the medical profession no longer condemned a person to the stigma of being identified as having a mental health disease simply for being attracted to someone of the same sex.

To substantiate your view, you simple need to provide me Church Teachings - Doctrine, Canon law, CCC points or Papal papers that instruct Catholics to use the medical profession to diagnose people with beliefs against the Catholic Church as suffering a mental health disorder. When you are able to do this the discussion has a chance of moving forward.

 

[essie7777]

Micheal19682

I think you have completely lost track of what this discussion was about and have gone off on very convoluted tangents and TBH i can not keep track of why you have gone down these paths so you are completely losing me.

In the interests of bringing this to a close.
The conversation was on homosexuality being taken from the DSM which is a MEDICAL DIRECTORY OF DIAGNOSIS CRITERIA AND BILLING CODES. Homosexuality does not meet the criteria to be identified as mental health disease. Hence it was removed almost 40 years, it had been included previously in the forerunner of this book which was a military internal document.

Sexual attraction can not be controlled by a pill or in a medical professionals office. The same way for example a heterosexual male can not take a pill to find only females with brunette hair attractive neither can you control someone who finds the same sex attractive with a pill or visit to the doctor’s office.

And lets not forget that the Church does not condemn or ban homosexuality (the attraction to same sex people). It does ban the illicit act. If anything the mental health field was simply catching up with the Catholic Church when they removed this disorder from the DSM, as from that point forward the medical profession no longer condemned a person to the stigma of being identified as having a mental health disease simply for being attracted to someone of the same sex.

To substantiate your view, you simple need to provide me Church Teachings - Doctrine, Canon law, CCC points or Papal papers that instruct Catholics to use the medical profession to diagnose people with beliefs against the Catholic Church as suffering a mental health disorder.

Otherwise i think we simply need to agree to disagree on this point or we could spend days off into differnt related topics, tangents and red herrings.

 

[rom422]

There is plenty of moral Church teachings against homosexual marriage; plenty of Church teachings about pre-marital sex as well as the sanctity of marriage - all of which explain why we are, as a faith, opposed to homosexual marriage.

However, i have yet to see any church document, or authoritative secular document for that matter, which says homosexuality is a psychological condition.

No thread should be promoting extreme unsubstantiated opinion — it’s really not necessary, the Catholic Church teachings stand up on their own.

Forgive me, essie, but I am still struggling to see what your point is. Are you objecting to my statement that says, “Having homosexual tendencies is not a sin, but a psychological condition.”?

 

[essie7777]

Forgive me, essie, but I am still struggling to see what your point is. Are you objecting to my statement that says, “Having homosexual tendencies is not a sin, but a psychological condition.”?

Yes, that is the statement i object to.