I need help with something

[InSearchofGrace]

Micheal19682
…
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. …

With regard to your posts up to this above, please read through the text in these three links, which I raised in a related thread. You may have come across the material already but if you have not, please take your time. It’s a total of 24 pages and an estimated 17,000 words.

The first is an insider perspective of what transpired that led to the removal of said diagnosis from perspective. You can listen to this American Life public radio episode, the audio about an hour total. Or you can opt to open the transcript, which is 13 pages, 9300 words.

81 WORDS
Originally aired 01.18.2002
The story of how the American Psychiatric Association decided in 1973 that homosexuality was no longer a mental illness.

With the touted ‘game changing’ study by Evelyn Hooker, here is a professional opinion by educator and policy analyst Dr. Thomas Landess: THE EVELYN HOOKER STUDY AND THE NORMALIZATION OF HOMOSEXUALITY

Finally, here’s a thoughtful analysis here: NOT SICK: THE 1973 REMOVAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY FROM THE DSM

I’m off to Mass then errands, so I am in no hurry to get a reply, which I hope will be a careful articulation and not a knee-jerk response by one from your field. Please don’t take anything in the previous sentence to be meant as an insult.
,

 

[Michael19682]

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.

…

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.

Very sad. You appear to not want to continue this discussion at all. Nevertheless, it looks like those whom hold your position have given you an endless set of elusive phrases and tricks on how to advertise for your profession. An expression we used to employ was, “drum up business”. Your last phrase, “to agree to disagree”, I have often felt is the epitome of the arrogant viewpoint: I was a little shocked that you employed it; but now it is much clearer - your entire position is an economic one.

“In the interests of bringing this to a close” (as if you again are setting the pace, tone and validity of the discourse with a prospective patient) is another such tell-tale sign.

I like to think that holding a dignified discussion often means letting the weeds grow among the wheat until the harvest time is ready.

Matthew 13: 20

24 He proposed another parable to them. “The kingdom of heaven may be likened to a man who sowed good seed in his field.
25 While everyone was asleep his enemy came and sowed weeds all through the wheat, and then went off.
26 When the crop grew and bore fruit, the weeds appeared as well.
27 The slaves of the householder came to him and said, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where have the weeds come from?’
28 He answered, ‘An enemy has done this.’ His slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’
29 He replied, ‘No, if you pull up the weeds you might uproot the wheat along with them.
30 Let them grow together until harvest; then at harvest time I will say to the harvesters, “First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles for burning; but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”

 

[rom422]

Originally Posted by rom422
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.”?

OK. If you do not want to call it a psychological condition, then what do you want to call it?

Please keep the Church out of this, because I never said that my statement was from the Catholic Church. It was my statement and I am taking responsibility for it. I can defend my statement regardless whether there was any Church document that supports it. If you intend to prove to me that homosexuality is a normal human behavior, you must start by defining for me what you mean by “normal.”

 

[preferanonymous]

Some of my friends, who are either Atheist or Socialist, keep on telling me that homosexuality is normal, and that homosexuals have the right to marry. And I’m starting to believe that is true, however, I have my doubts, and I really don’t want to commit a sin or let God or Jesus down. I have also, regrettably been attracted to some (male) friends, not sexually though. And I think this is because of them encouraging me that it is normal and right. Is it normal and right?

I need help, or whatever you can give me.

Hey Kanuckistani,

It might be said that in so far as it can be said to be ‘natural’ for man to sin- in the sense of original sin perhaps- some might be attracted sexually to others of the same-sex. This, however, I might argue does not give it moral justification. It seems it only would if an argument against homosexuality depended on the fact that biological natures were necessarily heterosexual. You might consider that this might be the wrong way to look at it- as though there was a fixed objective purpose in nature with respect to the sexual organs we could understand as such.

Instead, you might consider the following sorts of questions: ‘What reason does anyone have to act homosexually irrespective of whether or not one has tendencies to do so?’ Consider this question next to: ‘What reason does anyone have to have penis-vagina sexual intercourse irrespective of whether or not one has tendencies to do so?’ I think the reasons you might find to engage in the second sort of behavior (marital union, procreation) far exceed the reasons to do the former: which I think are zero. The sin, I think, would be to act against reason: to do that which one has no reason to do knowing that one has no reason to do it.

These sorts of considerations, it might be said, are a different way to look at the natural law. As an intentional act, sodomy is immoral because one really has no reason intend to do such an action. If it is good for one to do that which one has reason to do and bad to do that which one has no reason to do, and one never has a reason to intend sodomy, it is immoral and, in a different sense, might be said to be unnatural: where natural is understood as acting according to reason. To perhaps investigate these sorts of matters further, you might check out Elizabeth Anscombe’s Contraception and Chastity (C&C) found here: orthodoxytoday.org/articles/AnscombeChastity.php In understanding what is said about contraception, you might find the resources to better understand the issues regarding homosexuality. Anscombe herself, I think, claims in this piece that if contraception is permissible, one will have no basis for objecting to sodomy.

(I think there might have been a revision to C&C and do not know if what I linked is the latest version- I think it might be though).

You might also check out the writings of John Finnis and Germain Grisez as exponents for what has come to be known by some as the ‘New Natural Law’ tradition. This tradition, it might said, attempts to present natural law arguments without making use of notions like ‘natural functions’ or ‘perverted faculties’.

 

[essie7777]

OK. If you do not want to call it a psychological condition, then what do you want to call it?

Please keep the Church out of this, because I never said that my statement was from the Catholic Church. It was my statement and I am taking responsibility for it. I can defend my statement regardless whether there was any Church document that supports it. If you intend to prove to me that homosexuality is a normal human behavior, you must start by defining for me what you mean by “normal.”

My issue is that you by using the phrase “psychological condition” you are suggesting it is a disease and it’s not.

You are trying to define attraction as an abnormal behavior and that is unfounded. People are attracted to different things and gender is only one element of that.

Attraction is not choice and there is no definition of normal for attraction. The Church doesn’t distinguish between attraction preferences when discussing how wrong pre-marital sex is – doesn’t matter is your straight or not its still a sin. Even when talking about marriage the Church doesn’t use it as a platform for no homosexual marriage, the Church simply stands by its teachings on marriage which has always existed.

I simply don’t think that’s inappropriate as where does it stop - you then could say people attracted to blondes for example are suffering a mental condition, simply because you may not be.

You are attempting to stigmatize attraction and “punish” people who don’t agree with you – and that is against all Church teaching.

 

[Michael19682]

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.”?

Excellent question!

All mindsets and mental attitudes are in a very literal sense psychological conditions. Those who have apostatized themselves in their personal adherence to clinical psychology, preferring its cacaphony of rules to Jesus’ love and patience, have forgotten as well that neither the word ‘psychological’ nor the word ‘clinical’ belong to any one person or group; and so to say that use of them is ‘suggestive’ only tells us on what such people rely for their efficacy. Immoral suggestion and promotion of all the venial and grave sins for their speciously derived means of purportedly helping others. They are a lot of ‘the ends justifies the means’.

 

[rom422]

My issue is that you by using the phrase “psychological condition” you are suggesting it is a disease and it’s not.

It is a disease if it is not normal. I asked you to define for me what you mean by “normal” so we can resolve this issue, but you did not give me a definition.

You are trying to define attraction as an abnormal behavior and that is unfounded. People are attracted to different things and gender is only one element of that.

It is not attraction in general that is abnormal. For example, I don’t find it abnormal for boys to be attracted to girls, or for girls to be attracted to boys. In the context of our discussion it is the* homosexual tendencies* and the sexual attraction to people of the same sex that I find abnormal.

Attraction is not choice and there is no definition of normal for attraction.

Is this how you answer my request for a definition, by saying that there is no definition? If there is no definition of “normal” for attraction, - then how can you tell whether an attraction is normal or not?

The Church doesn’t distinguish between attraction preferences when discussing how wrong pre-marital sex is – doesn’t matter is your straight or not its still a sin. Even when talking about marriage the Church doesn’t use it as a platform for no homosexual marriage, the Church simply stands by its teachings on marriage which has always existed.

Like I said earlier, let’s keep the Church out of this for now. I want to see how far I can defend my position on homosexuality without recourse to religion or divine revelation. So, I will answer your objections on purely rational grounds for now.

I simply don’t think that’s inappropriate as where does it stop - you then could say people attracted to blondes for example are suffering a mental condition, simply because you may not be.

Again, you cannot say whether an attraction is appropriate or inappropriate until you define first what you understand by “appropriate” (or “normal”).

You are attempting to stigmatize attraction and “punish” people who don’t agree with you – and that is against all Church teaching.

I am not attempting to stigmatize attraction or punish people who don’t agree with me, but I will not say “Yes, it’s OK” just to make people happy.

 

[essie7777]

Very sad. You appear to not want to continue this discussion at all.

I am happy to continue the discussion if you would like to stay on point … i simply can’t keep track of your continuous tangents…that don’t answer the questions i have asked of you time and time again.

Nevertheless, it looks like those whom hold your position have given you an endless set of elusive phrases and tricks on how to advertise for your profession. An expression we used to employ was, “drum up business”. Your last phrase, “to agree to disagree”, I have often felt is the epitome of the arrogant viewpoint: I was a little shocked that you employed it; but now it is much clearer - your entire position is an economic one.

I haven’t drummed up business and at that is a bizarre comment. I have stated my perception and constantly asked for Church doctrine,dogma,teachings that advocate your opinion.

By dodging these questions it seems further discussion is defunct… as the original comments and discussion are now longer being dealt with.

I am not sure where you get the impression that agreeing to disagree is arrogant – its a polite way of saying let’s simply stop this and agree that we don’t agree!

I have to ask how on earth have you taken my comment to be economic – that is very very strange. To even respond you’d have to explain that bizarre and unrelated segue.

From your replies on the issue of mental health care and treatment this seemed to be a very emotive topic for you and rather than go down a route which wasn’t the content of the discussion - such as pills given out by psychiatric professionals, definitions of cure or management- i opted to being the conversation back on point -leaving the option open for you to defend your position as asked numerous times in my every post with you.

If you want to continue that conversation and stay on point, that’s fine. However, i simply don’t feel comfortable following the tangents you have chosen to direct this conversation with as they seem too personally emotive for you and i don’t want to debate psychiatric care as this isn’t the topic under discussion. If this interpretation of your comments is incorrect, i apologize.

I like to think that holding a dignified discussion

A dignified discussion would need to remain on point and have questions asked and answered by all participants --you don’t seem to like answering questions.

What started was a conversation where you insisted the Church advocates that homosexuals should be clinically diagnosised as having a mental health disorder.

In numerous posts you have failed to provide me of direction to find this moral law, Church doctrine. So why continue a conversation you aren’t actually having?

 

[essie7777]

It is a disease if it is not normal. I asked you to define for me what you mean by “normal” so we can resolve this issue, but you did not give me a definition…If there is no definition of “normal” for attraction, - then how can you tell whether an attraction is normal or not?

There is no normal definition for sexual attraction. Put 10 people in a line and you will not find that every person says the same thing when you ask them “what do you find sexually attractive?”.

Is this how you answer my request for a definition, by saying that there is no definition?

Yes and there lies the issue with blaze comment and opinion that homosexuality is a psychological disorder … It can not be if there is no standard normal clinical definition of what people find sexually attractive.

Like I said earlier, let’s keep the Church out of this for now. I want to see how far I can defend my position on homosexuality without recourse to religion or divine revelation. So, I will answer your objections on purely rational grounds for now.

The Church teachings are rational – and clearly your opinion is based on the teachings of the Catholic Church and as a Catholic we all follow (or should follow) the Church in our moral life.

So asking to keep the Church out of this seems very bizarre.

Again, you cannot say whether an attraction is appropriate or inappropriate until you define first what you understand by “appropriate” (or “normal”).

Normal and appropriate are not interchangeable terms they don;t mean the same thing.

I am not attempting to stigmatize attraction or punish people who don’t agree with me, but I will not say “Yes, it’s OK” just to make people happy.

By trying to insist that people who don’t agree with your opinions suffer a psychological condition and have mental health issue is stigmatizing.

No one asks you to be okay with it, that’s personal choice, however branding them in this manner is reminiscent of other situations where this has been done in history - think Europe 60 years ago. Isolating and making people be singled out based on prejudice and ignorance is unacceptable in any form – or should never be considered appropriate by anyone especially practicing Catholics.

 

[Nate13]

By trying to insist that people who don’t agree with your opinions suffer a psychological condition and have mental health issue is stigmatizing.

No one asks you to be okay with it, that’s personal choice, however branding them in this manner is reminiscent of other situations where this has been done in history - think Europe 60 years ago. Isolating and making people be singled out based on prejudice and ignorance is unacceptable in any form – or should never be considered appropriate by anyone especially practicing Catholics.

This seems somewhat weird. Is it wrong to “brand” and group together “handicap people”? Stereotyping and prejudice against handicap people had nothing to do with the fact that their condition was actually acknowledged by people. Acknowledging there was a real problem was in fact an important first step in helping the general public come to actually empathize with people who were handicap and end the prejudice to a large degree.

I believe the same thing applies to homosexual persons. Something either physically in a person’s brain or possibly entirely mentally in some cases is off. If we dodge around this fact, we don’t get anywhere. Homosexuality is only normal in that a certain amount of the population seems to consistently have homosexual attraction to some degree. This is not the sense that we talk about normal in though.

 

[essie7777]

This seems somewhat weird. Is it wrong to “brand” and group together “handicap people”? Stereotyping and prejudice against handicap people had nothing to do with the fact that their condition was actually acknowledged by people. Acknowledging there was a real problem was in fact an important first step in helping the general public come to actually empathize with people who were handicap and end the prejudice to a large degree.

I have read this a couple of times and hope i have misunderstood what you are saying … before i comment can you please clarify this statement?

I believe the same thing applies to homosexual persons. Something either physically in a person’s brain or possibly entirely mentally in some cases is off. If we dodge around this fact, we don’t get anywhere. Homosexuality is only normal in that a certain amount of the population seems to consistently have homosexual attraction to some degree. This is not the sense that we talk about normal in though.

Your comments are unfounded and have been irrefutably and scientifically proven as such. There is no difference in someone’s brain if they are homosexual, and attraction to something different to you does not make that person mentally ill either.

Wow – as a Catholic i take my moral guidance form Church teachings, doctrine and there is no basis for this discriminatory rationale you take to deem homosexuals as suffering a mental health disease or disorder. You only need to read the CCC to understand that this is not acceptable under any interpretation of Catholicism.

CCC 2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

CCC 2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Don’t confuse the person behind the label homosexual with the acts some may chose to do. The Catholic Church seems to understand this distinction, and doesn’t punish the homosexual for their attraction, this is not a mortal sin.

The Church teachings on pre-marital sex are the same gay or straight, the Catholic sacrament of marriage holds true today completely, so why anyone would think that this is an acceptable route to go is quite frankly beyond me. It’s against everything we as Catholics are taught and against the Church itself.

 

[Nate13]

@essie7777
I’m confused as to what you are taking issue with. I’m not advocating for discrimination of homosexual people anymore than I am of those who are handicapped. If someone is paralyzed and in a wheelchair though I’m not going to sit there and deny that they are paralyzed. Being paralyzed does not make that person any less deserving of the respect and dignity every person deserves though, and does not give that person any less of a call to holiness. The same applies to homosexual persons. You seem to think that by someone saying homosexual persons are suffering a psychological condition, they are also saying they are called to less than other people are in terms of chastity. I do not understand why you believe those two beliefs are mutually inclusive. I can belief they are suffering a psychological condition to some extent and belief they are called to live a chaste life just as I am. Despite whatever impediments hinder us, we are all called to be holy.

CCC 2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

You are reading into my post if you think I do not understand this.

 

[Ignatius]

@essie7777
I’m confused as to what you are taking issue with. I’m not advocating for discrimination of homosexual people anymore than I am of those who are handicapped. If someone is paralyzed and in a wheelchair though I’m not going to sit there and deny that they are paralyzed. Being paralyzed does not make that person any less deserving of the respect and dignity every person deserves though, and does not give that person any less of a call to holiness.

You are reading into my post if you think I do not understand this.

I thought your post was perfectly clear and I don’t see how anyone could state it more plainly or make it any more unambiguous. Your statements have not given the least connotation or prejudice.

We must recognize that certain people will deliberately misinterpret what is said because they do not want to recognize that, while every human being deserves respect, condoning sinful behaviors is not an act of kindness but is quite the opposite in that it encourages people to continue down the path which is gravely harmful to themselves and others.

 

[Michael19682]

.

I am happy to continue the discussion if you would like to stay on point …

Ok if you say so. The Lord is in all things. Every point was created by Him. Even the lies of the devil are used by God to master our sinful tendencies in so learning that their end is death. Simply because one feels lost or unable to tolerate the cross of truth, and scripture has been offered many times, indeed, likely as many times as questions have here been asked, does not mean that a point is lost, a lie, or is in any wise not on topic.

By dodging these questions it seems further discussion is defunct… as the original comments and discussion are now longer being dealt with.

Saint Augustine asked if he is responsible for the sight of a person who when asked if he can see the star to which [that saint] is pointing, has not keen enough vision to even see his finger. I hope things become clearer for you in time.

I am not sure where you get the impression that agreeing to disagree is arrogant – its a polite way of saying let’s simply stop this and agree that we don’t agree!

Who is the “we” you make reference? 1) If it is to the general group of people here on CAF, I think you will be hard pressed to find disagreements that go unresolved by agreeing to disagree. Usually one or the other recognizes his/her fault, stops arguing, or sees the wisdom of letting his cross lead to a new life. 2) If it is in reference to you and I here in this discussion, then my point about arrogance in employing such a phrase is that I DO NOT agree to disagree with you. And further, no one has the right to tell me when I can, may, or might agree to disagree.

**I have to ask how on earth **have you taken my comment to be economic – that is very very strange. To even respond you’d have to explain that bizarre and unrelated segue.

You have answered your own question. Your answer seems to be that I took your comment to be economic, strange, and bizzarre, and, as you said, an unrelated segue.

If this interpretation of your comments is incorrect, i apologize.

Misinterpretation of my comments is definitely not an offense. However, your apology seems very heartfelt, and I do regret any hurt you might have suffered on account of my words. But please understand, I don’t think I am ready to concede a point I believe grounded in truth because I may feel sorry for someone. If that person were handicapped and incapable of understanding, a euphemism might suffice; then prayer for the person’s return to wholeness. But you seem quite capable of understanding. Actually, you are feisty.

What started was a conversation where you insisted the Church advocates that homosexuals should be clinically diagnosised as having a mental health disorder.

This discussion has been very recursive. And it is a complex recursion at that. However, my opinion is also that I have given you answers, and that you have refuted them all to your own satisfaction only (or else the recursion would have unwound itself by now) - hence, I deduce, and deduce only, that you have dismissed my answers, forgotten them and thus yourself say “you don’t seem to like answering questions.”

I simply said that prior to the mid 1970’s, it was disgnosed as a disorder. Everyone agreed on that already.

 

[essie7777]

… while every human being deserves respect, condoning sinful behaviors is not an act of kindness but is quite the opposite in that it encourages people to continue down the path which is gravely harmful to themselves and others.

And therein lies your confusion with the discussion that is being had on this thread… Homosexuality is not the act of homosexual sex.

The Church does not condemn someone attracted to someone of the same sex. As the CCC clearly states that person can live in full communion with the Catholic Church and its teachings.

It is the sex act between homosexuals that is morally condemned. The same way any sex act outside of marriage is morally condemned irrespective of the involved people’s gender. That is consistent Church teachings.

So my point has continued to be the same consistently through out this thread-- it is bigoted and prejudicial to suggest that homosexuality is a medically diagnosisable mental health disorder/disease, as that translates to unjust discrimination. The Church does not advocate this at all and even advises against such behavior (again from CCC).

And no one has put together an appropriate Church based response that can justify this stance at all. That is all i have asked for. Instead of a direct response the general theme is to try a different track to justify it but none of them are based on Church teachings.

 

[essie7777]

@essie7777
I’m confused as to what you are taking issue with. I’m not advocating for discrimination of homosexual people anymore than I am of those who are handicapped. If someone is paralyzed and in a wheelchair though I’m not going to sit there and deny that they are paralyzed. Being paralyzed does not make that person any less deserving of the respect and dignity every person deserves though, and does not give that person any less of a call to holiness. The same applies to homosexual persons. You seem to think that by someone saying homosexual persons are suffering a psychological condition, they are also saying they are called to less than other people are in terms of chastity. I do not understand why you believe those two beliefs are mutually inclusive. I can belief they are suffering a psychological condition to some extent and belief they are called to live a chaste life just as I am. Despite whatever impediments hinder us, we are all called to be holy. You are reading into my post if you think I do not understand this.

I have just one question – do people with a physical disability have a clinically medically diagnosisable mental illness simply because they are physically disabled?

 

[Nate13]

I have just one question – do people with a physical disability have a clinically medically diagnosisable mental illness simply because they are physically disabled?

uh no. Being physically disabled is many times completely separate from being mentally disabled in some way. You could be one or the other, or both. Some mental illnesses result in someone being physically handicap, others do not.

Why are you so quick to question my motivations and knowledge? Your question is almost an insult in and of itself haha. I’m not blind to what you were insinuating in your question.

 

[essie7777]

@Michael19682

You post is again full of tangents and no direct answer.

You have tried to argue that a mental diagnosis of a mental health disorder is appropriate and justified for homosexuality, but when challenged to demonstrate this through teachings from the Catholic Church you have failed to answer.

 

[essie7777]

uh no. Being physically disabled is many times completely separate from being mentally disabled in some way. You could be one or the other, or both. Some mental illnesses result in someone being physically handicap, others do not.

Why are you so quick to question my motivations and knowledge? Your question is almost an insult in and of itself haha. I’m not blind to what you were insinuating in your question.

I’m not questioning your motivations or knowledge – i’m questioning your comments.

Well then why would you suggest that in your own words a “handicap” of homosexuality IS a clinically medically diagnosisable disorder/disease? Is this question is obvious why not simply answer it then, as this is the discussion that is being had on this thread.

 

[Michael19682]

@Michael19682

You post is again full of tangents and no direct answer.

You have tried to argue that a mental diagnosis of a mental health disorder is appropriate and justified for homosexuality, but when challenged to demonstrate this through teachings from the Catholic Church you have failed to answer.

I have might have failed at getting you to acknowledge an answer. In reality, I answered you several times.