I need help with something

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kanuckistani
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually, i am not sure how to put this without being perceived as rude, so i am simply going to state upfront this is not meant to cause offense. 🙂

Basically you are misreading what you have linked here. The two posts sustain and agree with my statement that it is a maladjusted social behavior. It does fall under the umbrella of conduct disorder, and what you incorrectly interpret from the second link is simply based on lack of training and experience in using the DSM and the diagnostic complexities. The link is to the end of a two page diagnostic guideline for kleptomania. Your specific reference point is actually a diagnostic criteria question which must be answered – so it doesn’t state that it isn’t a conduct disorder, simply that you need to be sure that it fulfills the diagnosis of kleptomania rather than not just conduct disorder but a manic episode or antisocial personality disorder.

Layman use of the DSM is not recommended because of this type of mis interpretation:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders

I think and believe that the attraction to same sex is not in line with my Catholic beliefs of couples and marriages and raising children. It is not however a mental illness of any description.

I believe that any person including homosexuals should live according to the moral teachings of the Catholic Church, and if they don’t then they are in “objective disorder” with the Church.

They need to be offered a route back to the grace of God. And the only place to find the answer is through God, and through the Catholic Church. (Though this is the same if a person is heterosexual for that matter).

Does that answer your question?
“Science is not simply a collection of true facts about the world, but is the body of assertions and theories about the world made by people who are called scientists” – R.C.Lewontin

Anyway, either of you know of any biological evidence for homosexuality being naturally occurring? I asked it several pages ago, but no-one answered…

The terms you’re arguing over are ultimately terms of little significance, theistically speaking. Is mental disorder a sin? Probably not. Is having sex with someone of your own gender a sin? Apparently. Is sociopathy a mental disorder? Apparently. Is disregard for your fellows a sin? Yes. “Oh, but sociopathy is a mental disorder, therefore…”

Doesn’t follow 🤷
 
Spiritually yes, as a mental health disease no.
Finally, we are getting somewhere. OK, let us not call it a mental health disease. I really do not care what you want to call this disorder. You may simply call it a spiritual disorder, instead of the more fancy terms “psychic disorder,” or “psychological disorder.” Actually, calling sh$t by any other name will not make it smell better. The important thing is to recognize that the homosexual feeling is a disorder, a lack of rectitude in the movement of the sexual appetite.

I will now bring you to the next plane of our discussion, but I first need to digress a little bit to bring home some very important points. Besides the sexual appetite we also have the natural appetite for food and drink. Food and drink are supposed to nourish our bodies, and the desire for food and drink is therefore normal and healthy. But there are several ways in which a disorder can come in with respect to this appetite. One way is by eating or drinking too much (gluttony) so that the food or drink harms rather than helps the body. Another way is by eating or drinking too little, so that not enough nourishment is consumed. In both of these cases the disorder has nothing to do with the food or drink itself, because food is designed by nature to nourish the body. The disorder is in the amount of food or drink taken.

With respect to our appetite for food or drink we can say that one person is not more normal than another person because he prefers to eat rice rather than bread. One is not more normal than another because he likes to drink water rather than fruit juice. This is because these food and drink are designed by nature to nourish the body, and the desire for these substances is in harmony with the natural design and purpose of our digestive system, which is ordered toward the preservation of the individual. In other words, the appetite for these food and drink meets the functional definition of “normal.” However, there is an abnormality, a serious disorder, - one that is even more serious than eating or drinking too much or too little, - when a person shows a craving, hunger or thirst for poisonous substances, or substances that are not nourishing but harmful. In this particular case the disorder (or abnormality) does not result from the amount of substance taken, but from the kind of substance craved for. The appetite for poisonous substances is abnormal, unnatural, and disordered in itself because the tendency of the appetite is not toward food, but toward a non-food, and this craving counters or opposes the function and natural design of our bodies.

Now let’s go back to our sexual appetite. Let me call your attention to the fact that there is another disorder – call it a spiritual disorder also, if you wish - similar to homosexual inclinations. It is something that we find even among heterosexual people. I am referring to LUST - the uncontrolled and inordinate craving for sex. The desire for sex (with a person of the opposite sex) is healthy and normal in itself, because it is ordained by nature toward the preservation of the human species. But if sexual desire is excessive and uncontrolled, it degenerates into lust and can lead to sins such as masturbation, fornication, adultery, etc. Therefore, lust is also a disorder of the soul and, if carried to the extreme, it could border on mania. Of course, I do not call every person who experiences some lustful feelings as mentally ill, just as I do not call a gluttonous person as mentally sick. However, it is important to recognize the possibility of developing disorders like this, if we are lacking in self-control. Lust is a disorder similar to gluttony, in the sense that it portrays the movement of the appetite toward the right object, but in the incorrect amount. Lust is the excessive sexual craving for a person of the opposite sex, just as gluttony is the excessive craving for food.

Now, a homosexual feeling is a sexual feeling, too, but unlike lust which tends toward a person of the opposite sex, the homosexual tendency is toward a person of the same sex. The homosexual tendency or inclination is, therefore, similar to the craving for a poisonous substance in the sense that they both tend toward the wrong object. It is therefore inherently unnatural, abnormal and objectively disordered in itself, because its tendency is contrary to the functional design of the human sexual act, which is ordained by nature toward the preservation of the human species. For this reason, a homosexual feeling is a disorder more serious than lust.

Again, it is important to note that merely to have a strong appetite (for food or sex) is not a sin. Lust is not a sin, but a passion. A homosexual tendency or inclination is also not a sin but a psychological condition. But failure to control all of these tendencies is dangerous, because they can result in gluttony, illegitimate sexual acts (outside marriage), homosexual acts, etc. – all of which are sinful.

A good question to ask now is this: Does the having of excessive appetite a purely spiritual disorder, or does it have accompanying physiological aberrations? Is lust a purely spiritual disorder that exists only in the soul, or does it relate to the body’s physiology (hormones, etc.). In the same manner, is a homosexual feeling a purely spiritual disorder, or is it somehow related to physical and chemical changes taking place in the body? I am not a doctor and am not qualified to answer these questions. But if I were to make a guess, knowing how the human soul is intimately united to the body, I think that these disorders also have physiological roots — Just my opinion.
 
It can be a little frustrating when a poster clearly hasn’t read what had been put before.

I would strongly recommend that you READ OR REREAD them; as your first sentence of your post, demonstrates that you have simply “jumped” feet first and are sounding uninformed of this thread’s content and the opinions of the posters. 🤷

All of your points have been answered in previous posts.
You, Sir or Madam, are breathtakingly RUDE. Excuse me for frustrating your obviously brilliant mind.

:mad:
 
Dr Fitzgibbons is not a consultant to the Congregation for the Clergy based on his beliefs on homosexuality. He is a consultant because of his Institute of Marriage Healing and thework on forgiveness in marriage. That is his area of expertise and knowledge that the Congregation of the Clergy consult with him on.

Suggesting that the Vatican supports his beliefs on homosexuality is simply ridiculous and totally unsupported. Especially when you only need to read the words of the Catholic Church teachings and especially the works of the Pope, both present and past, to show that these Church does not support in any way what Dr Fitzgibbons says on homosexuality.
…
Excuse me, Dr. Fitzgibbons is a specialist in marital healing but he is also a contributor to the Catholic Church’s efforts in her understanding of homosexuality. Why else is he a resource for Courage, the only apostolate that the Church endorses in her outreach to homosexuals? Further, he is also involved in the Church effort to proactively stem the clergy abuse / homosexual problem in her ranks. On behalf of the Catholic Medical Association, Dr. Fitzgibbons opened his service to the effort of the Church of helping men and women struggling with homosexuality while remaining thoroughly within Christian moral tradition.
,
 
Essie,
I have a question, which is what precisely is a mental illness, and would there be a difference between a mental illness and a mental disorder?

Thanks
 
…

With Alix Speigel’s artcle and content you are guilty of what you accuse the homosexuals of doing, hanging your argument on one flawed article. No matter how many times you try to force the point from her own account, she has an agenda --her grandfather’s homosexual relationships - which is clouding her sperception. This is not a factually evidenced discussion at all.
I did not and don’t get the impression from Alix’s account that her family connection to APA’s Dr. John Spiegel clouded her perception. Why or how do you arrive at that? In fact, her account does not say or let on if she was for or against the removal of homosexuality from the DSM, or if she is for or against homosexual rights.

I brought up the interview to dispel the common thinking of mental health students and professionals that the removal was based on scientific evidence and not political pressure. There might be an attempt to make it look like the decision was based on science, but it was a capitulation to the demand of activists, both inside and outside the APA. Alix Spiegel’s research is consistent with the accounts of Dr. Socarides and Dr. Spitzer. We can go round and around this fact that is undeniable.
I am not confused at all. …
Then why did you bring up homosexual rights?
You have failed to consider any of the history which disputes your assertion that your perception is incorrect. There was 20 years of research, numerous studies, task forces with out spoken opponents of the change on (who ultimately die to the PROOF agreed with the change) all of which combined to change the inclusion. Because you have an article that says it was done in one meeting you are ignoring the tide of opinion which was already impacting and being listened to by the members of the APA.
I hear this a lot, 20 years of research and numerous studies. You mean before 1973? Our argument is about the studies that led to the removal of the diagnosis. If so, please provide the links to unbiased researches that indeed confirmed the Hooker and Kinsey results.

There is a Gonsiorek study in 1982, but that is 10 years later. Is this study or some other that stands up to scrutiny readily available on the APA sites (psychiatric and psychological associations)?
No where have i suggested you sign off on homosexual marriage or adoption – so not sure where you got this from! Nor have i suggested you don’t want to give them rights in society.
As I mentioned, you brought up homosexual rights, and I thought of making a disclaimer right off the bat that I am against discrimination of homosexuals but would not go so far as to affirm the lifestyle and the demand for SS"M" and parenting.
I have clearly, more than once said your argument for inclusion of homosexuality in the DSM as a mental health disease is wrong, uncharitable, prejudiced and not founded on empirical data but homophobic cultural discrimination of the time.
And I have clarified that I do not necessarily hold the view that homosexuality is a mental condition. I am not vested one way or another on the notion that it is mental disease. But I believe is the homosexual tendency and engaging in homogenital action are objectively disordered, as the others in the thread expressed. It is undeniable that is associated with a list of morbid mental factors, e.g., depression, suicidal ideation, risky sexual behavior, etc.
Welcome to peer review and academic research. This is what it does. Hence the studies need to be examined tested retested, expanded et al. The problem you have though, is those who share your assertion haven’t done this at all. They offer no proof, no peer reviewed research that-- nothing but the fact they say so.
Actually, there are and have been studies from ‘those who share my assertion’ offered in this forum. You are not the first to come on board who is pro-APA position on the subject we are debating. You can avail yourself of the site search function and check related threads. There may not be a ton in publication because of the way peer reviews are conducted by the APA, which is another area of contention between us.

[con’t]
 
[con’t]
Since the etiology of homosexuality is still unknown other than there is a list of probabilities and that there was no gay gene discovered even after DNA has been mapped, how about NOC or “not otherwise classified” disorder that the APA leadership could have considered instead of outright removal? How about being neutral instead of serving as an advocacy profession for homosexuality?
How are your comments relevant to what I said?

With and following the removal of the diagnosis from the DSM, the APA also became a tool of the homosexualists. You are surely aware that the professional association signed onto same sex ‘marriage’ and adoption and parenting. This is why I asked (rhetorically) why could the APA not have stayed neutral instead of serving as an advocacy profession for homosexuality and radical homosexual demands on society? What are your views on that? Do you support the professional organization on this? If you do not support it, will you make an exception if your colleagues or psychiatrists assume you are or are expected to be for it?

What will you say and do if a patient told you as the treating therapist about his/her struggle to fight off homosexual feelings? Will you promote the idea that homosexuality is normal even if your faith teaches it is objectively disordered and acting on it is wrong? Or, will you align yourself with the position of the association of professionals of which you are a member? How exactly will you handle it? You see, this is where the analogy of my mention of the nurse who will not participate in an abortion procedure because participation would be against his/her religious and moral belief comes in, not to mention it is against natural law.
Let me ask you this, if the DSM included Catholicism as a mental health conduct disorder, based on the cultural perception that we are all a little bit odd, old fashioned, disconnected from the "real(secular) world, refusing to accept the “norm” of society (please note not my beliefs ;)) would you be so insistent then that the old content remain included because maybe they’ll prove it later?
This is in essence what you are suggesting for homosexuality.
That is right out of the playbook of homosexual activists. Are you a closet homosexual activist? 😃

I hope you will answer the questions I posed to you.
Aren’t you missing the point --this is exactly what they have done. In a book which contains evidence based disease and disorders, where there is no evidence they have excluded it. The DSM is not a list of suggestions its a list of provable, tested, empirically based (ie research as explained above) diagnosises.
It is undeniable that there are patients struggling with homosexuality (urges and behavior) who seek resolution. There may or may not be a resolution, depending on objectives by both patient and therapist. What mainstream psychiatrists and psychologists do now is to simply convince the patient that the unwanted homosexual urge and homosexual expression are normal, and that the feeling should simply be affirmed and lived out. Correct? They would even be cited by the APA for ethical violation if they don’t go along with this. What happened to the patient right of self-determination for treatment in this regard?
,
 
[con’t]

What happened to the patient right of self-determination for treatment in this regard?
,
InSearchofGrace, you have misnamed yourself on this forum. You have found Grace. As one read of your comments indicates, you live in Grace. I thank you heartily for commenting.:):)👍
 
Actually, there are and have been studies from ‘those who share my assertion’ offered in this forum. You are not the first to come on board who is pro-APA position on the subject we are debating. You can avail yourself of the site search function and check related threads. There may not be a ton in publication because of the way peer reviews are conducted by the APA, which is another area of contention between us.
I think you are confused - peer reviewed is not a misnomer for APA peer review – academic journals do not have to be peer reviewed by the APA.

The fact that research is not published suggests that they failed the first stage of peer review -repetition of methodology and results. if this can not be done it can not be published.

So your point simply demonstrates this and your lack of understanding how academic journals work further emphasizes the basis that there is NO research that stands up to even the first stage of peer review.
 
You are surely aware that the professional association signed onto same sex ‘marriage’ and adoption and parenting. This is why I asked (rhetorically) why could the APA not have stayed neutral instead of serving as an advocacy profession for homosexuality and radical homosexual demands on society? What are your views on that? Do you support the professional organization on this? If you do not support it, will you make an exception if your colleagues or psychiatrists assume you are or are expected to be for it?
You are making assumptions again – i am not a member of the APA. I am a member of other association and professional groups, which in my mind are more appropriate organisations that fit my ideology and purpose in future practice.

I am aware of the debate that the APA is involved in, may i point out this is the first time you have brought this up so how i was supposed to know this was why you questioned whether the APA should be neutral is a little beyond reasonable interpretation of your comment…i’m not a mind reader.

I am also aware that their issue stems from the mental health stance of discrimination and making people feel stigmatized based on this the impact it has on their mental health. I am also aware there is continued discussion on whether this is appropriate for them from inside the organisation. As it is a discussion i am not sure where your issue lies. Discussion is allowed isn’t it?
What will you say and do if a patient told you as the treating therapist about his/her struggle to fight off homosexual feelings? Will you promote the idea that homosexuality is normal even if your faith teaches it is objectively disordered and acting on it is wrong? Or, will you align yourself with the position of the association of professionals of which you are a member? How exactly will you handle it? You see, this is where the analogy of my mention of the nurse who will not participate in an abortion procedure because participation would be against his/her religious and moral belief comes in, not to mention it is against natural law.
As above you have assumed that i am a member of the APA.

The most appropriate and practical guide to this is available from usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/homosexuality/always-our-children.cfm

It really is very simple … when you have a patient you have an intake interview. One of the questions that is important to me is their faith. You can not counsel/help someone unless the therapeutic relationship is going to be beneficial. I aim to work in conjunction with my faith so this is essential for me in practice.

If a client does not share my faith then i can not ethically or legally use my position to force them to accept my perception. in which case being as i am training not only in Clinical Psychology, but also Catholic canon law, i would simply pass them to another therapist if their beliefs and mine as well as their perception of what the therapeutic relationship would do is not in agreement. To not do this would be an ethical violation.

So, if they were Catholic and wanted help dealing with their sexuality and how to live their life then yes i would work with them. If they were not Catholic and wanted affirmation of living a sinful life with pre-marital sex and such then no i would not take them as a client. The same i would not take a heterosexual client who simply wanted to affirm such overt sexual behaviors as acceptable.

The guide from USCCB though doesn’t state anywhere convince a homosexual person they are wrong --it simply shows how to be supportive and promote a life that can be in communion with the Catholic Church. This guides practice on the issue as a Catholic.

It is not my job to brain wash people. I can only help someone who wants help. I will not nor can not condone someone in a position of authority, as it is in a therapeutic relationship to do harm to a person rather than help them.
That is right out of the playbook of homosexual activists. Are you a closet homosexual activist? 😃
Hardly, although i notice you didn’t answer the question. It is an example that demonstrates the futility of trying to make something a mental health disease that is ludicrously based on opinion and not biology/empirical proof.

It’s not about being a homosexual activist – this is a poor defense to something that if you can not answer, as stated before simply leaves the door open for those activists to point to the flaws in your own point of view.

It’s also a classic Catholic response to accuse (even with a smiley face) someone of being against you when they ask a question you don’t like or can’t answer.

This makes it so frustrating to believe in how you approach things as your fall back response to valid criticizm of your position is to attack the person asking it. This is both crude and childish.

CONT
 
It is undeniable that there are patients struggling with homosexuality (urges and behavior) who seek resolution. There may or may not be a resolution, depending on objectives by both patient and therapist. What mainstream psychiatrists and psychologists do now is to simply convince the patient that the unwanted homosexual urge and homosexual expression are normal, and that the feeling should simply be affirmed and lived out. Correct? They would even be cited by the APA for ethical violation if they don’t go along with this. What happened to the patient right of self-determination for treatment in this regard?
There are also heterosexuals who seek resolution for struggles with their sexuality -their behaviors and urges. You are excluding the “other side of the coin”. Issues with sexuality are not confined to homosexuals.

You seem to have a jaded perception of the profession and TBH there is little point trying to suggest that you are unbelievable misinformed. The basic answer to your question is NO, no professional would advocate living out homosexual urges simply because a person has homosexual thoughts. You are trying to distill a highly complicated process to one conclusion and this why the answer is no, based on your very simplistic assertion there is no way of telling what a professional would say or do — what are the issues? how are they impacting life? what does the client want? What are the aims of therapy? All of these questions would need to be examined and considered. I am pretty sure though will not believe this.

Your perception of ethics is again misinformed. You are misreading the code, it can not betaken in solitude, away from a clinical example and as above the ethics derive from the patient situation not from the professional’s personal point of view. Although i am sure you will tell me that you know better.

Whilst this conversation started as a discussion about DSM, which you were more than clear on should have kept homosexual in – it is now spreading beyond that question.

I am more than happy to discuss these points but ask that you consider the following.

My stance against the DSM inclusion was just that. To try and use that to “bash” a whole profession which includes professionals beyond psychiatrists, (i am waiting for you to realize that i am not training to be a psychiatrist but a psychologist!) is generalizing across nearly 500,000 licensed professionals in mental health. You can’t make sweeping statements and suggest they are the normal behaviors of people that work in the mental health arena.

You are suggesting that homosexuals acts are intrinsically linked to someone simply being homosexual. By this i mean you seem to take it as a given that a homosexual will have sex. That is not fair or reasonable. They are a lot of people who accept they find same sex people attractive but don’t act on it. They aren’t advocating same sex marriage or adoption. You are broad stroking an entire population group and whether you accept that or not its discrimination.

The issues with sex without marriage, marriage of same sex couples and adoption rights are a related but different conversation and some elements of this are open to heterosexuals as well - ie sex before marriage.
 
@InSearchofGrace;8837201

I will answer your other points when the internet blackout stops in 24 hrs … the sites i’m trying to use are offline in protest of the SOPA and PIPA legislation. 🙂
 
Gay people function normally in society they don’t exhibit maladjusted behaviors that make then abnormal in psychopathology. Its a social issue.
Based on a statement you made above, I raised a question that was still unanswered. Are you telling me that homosexuals who engage in homosexual acts do not exhibit maladjusted behaviors?
 
InSearchofGrace, you have misnamed yourself on this forum. You have found Grace. As one read of your comments indicates, you live in Grace. I thank you heartily for commenting.:):)👍
I’m not sure if I deserve the kind words :blushing: but thank you very much.
,
 
… These comments ignore the fundamental basis for inclusion of a condition in the DSM. *Basically, it needs to have provable psychopathology and **evident examples of maladjustment in society. *Homosexuality itself does not fit the criteria at all. People who are homosexual do not have a psychopathology different to heterosexuals, they are not incapable of functioning in society. No evidence has ever been provided to sustain this culturally biased opinion. *…
Essie, I have been following this discussion, and have a few questions.

Wrt the bolded part above, wouldn’t an attraction to the same sex itself qualify as a maladjustment to society, since the basis of society (the family) necessitates a person’s attraction to the opposite sex?*

But it may be that this word psychopathology has something to do with it, and I am not sure how that fits in, so maybe if you clarify that, it would answer my question above.
His support of using psychiatry to “brain wash” people away from homosexual thoughts is fundamentally wrong. *When would this ever be appropriate? Should we use psychiatry to convince people to be Catholic? *Would this be appropriate?
I am not exactly sure what the problem here is. It seems that getting counseling or treatment for a currently accepted mental disease such as kleptomania involves some of what you here call brainwashing: changing the state of the mind from kleptomanaical to non-kleptomanaical, and something similar is proposed for homosexuals: to change their minds from centering on their own sex to centering on the opposite sex?

Also, I totally don’t understand your comparing that to Catholicism, which I have seen you use two or three times in this thread (I think, but I’ve also read various posts more than once, so please forgive me if I am wrong).

We use psychiatry to “brainwash” people away from having lots of currently-defined mental problems such as PSTD, OCD, etc.*

So I guess I am misunderstanding the point of what you are trying to clarify by using this argument and hope you will be able to clarify that.

Thanks! The conversation has been very interesting to me, and I appreciate your sharing your knowledge.
 
Exactly.

Just a reaction to this part of your post and all these posts about mental illness. This might serve as an interesting read to you and those following this thread: Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness, written by Gary Greenberg, a practicing psychotherapist. It is a searing account of the politics that still goes inside the APA, leading to changes in the DSM, from DSM 1 to DSM 5 (which is in draft form for release).
Thank you for the article. I’m losing trust in the DSM. I think the lack of clear definitions is weighing down on the entire profession of psychiatry. We all have to be cautious now about what the APA says, or what they publish, or what they recommend.

It find it anomalous that diseases and mental disorders could be redefined arbitrarily, just by adding or removing symptoms. In that magazine, for example, there is a chart that says DSM-5 now consider those men with reduced interest in sex (or where excitement lags in 75% of encounters) as having a “sexual interest/arousal disorder.” Ha ha ha. So, maybe a great number of our saints and religious will soon be declared “sick” with a special condition called “sexual interest/arousal disorder.” Maybe Pope Benedict, too. LOL. I think many psychiatrists have become nuts!
 
I do have a reply to this and would like to engage you in how the politicized APA handles the peer review process, but it will have to wait as your next posts bring up something more compelling.
You are making assumptions again – i am not a member of the APA. I am a member of other association and professional groups, which in my mind are more appropriate organisations that fit my ideology and purpose in future practice.
…
As it is a discussion i am not sure where your issue lies. Discussion is allowed isn’t it?
Most certainly. If I may say at this point, though, the rabid and dominating quality of your argumentation style does not make it easy to have a discussion with you, a member who has just logged ~ 150 posts in this forum. A quick look at the course of your exchanges with posters in this thread and other threads is breath taking as one has pointed out.
As above you have assumed that i am a member of the APA.
Well, I’m glad we got that out of the way. Do you plan to be a member of the American Psychological Association (not the American Psychiatric Association of course – I thought I better make that clear) after completing your doctoral study? Can you stay away from the dominant organization with a worldview and politics that run against moral principles in the interest of social and public interest? Please don’t switch to the tiring and false claim that Catholics and the Catholic Church just want to run this country. That seems to be the theme of your posts so far. With respect to existing laws like Roe v Wade and legal challenges to DOMA, the bottom line argument of Catholics in such debates is not Catholic per se, but natural law principles.

It is curious that you cite the USCCB document on Always our Children, as it is directed to parents and church ministers. It has a good pastoral tone; however, if you don’t mind, I will also bring up the weighty document CDF Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, which contains definitive guidance on the nature on the nature and morality of homosexuality.
It really is very simple …
The guide from USCCB though doesn’t state anywhere convince a homosexual person they are wrong --it simply shows how to be supportive and promote a life that can be in communion with the Catholic Church. This guides practice on the issue as a Catholic.
Thanks for sharing how you would go about helping a patient struggling with homosexuality issues. It is important but I snipped the portion so I can get this post under 6000 words and leaving the part that I bolded.

See, I disagree with you there. This is why I raised the CDF document above so that perhaps you may be guided accordingly if you are sincere in integrating your faith with your profession. There is delicate balancing that is not easy, but the rightness/wrongness (moral) and beneficial / hurtful position need to be fleshed out somehow for you as a mental health professional (should you be one or if you are one now) and an actual or potential patient. A homosexual finds it hard to delineate his being a person and his homosexual action/thoughts. I do not disagree with you that a heterosexual who has a disordered fornicating / adulterous habit is to be helped and needs correction as well.
It is not my job to brain wash people. I can only help someone who wants help. I will not nor can not condone someone in a position of authority, as it is in a therapeutic relationship to do harm to a person rather than help them.
Clearly, brainwashing people is not what I am positing.
Hardly, although i notice you didn’t answer the question. It is an example that demonstrates the futility of trying to make something a mental health disease that is ludicrously based on opinion and not biology/empirical proof.
It’s not about being a homosexual activist – this is a poor defense to something that if you can not answer, as stated before simply leaves the door open for those activists to point to the flaws in your own point of view.
It’s also a classic Catholic response to accuse (even with a smiley face) someone of being against you when they ask a question you don’t like or can’t answer.
This makes it so frustrating to believe in how you approach things as your fall back response to valid criticizm of your position is to attack the person asking it. This is both crude and childish.
Re-read what you wrote. Do you think you have a corner on finesse and maturity? Too bad they are not subjects in pursuing a doctoral degree in clinical psychology. Let me ask you: Are you embarrassed that you are a Catholic? Can you really be one in your chosen field?
,
 
There are also heterosexuals who seek resolution for struggles with their sexuality -their behaviors and urges. You are excluding the “other side of the coin”. Issues with sexuality are not confined to homosexuals.
And why are you bringing this up? Has it been posited at all that heterosexuals do not have sexuality issues?
You seem to have a jaded perception of the profession and TBH there is little point trying to suggest that you are unbelievable misinformed. The basic answer to your question is NO, no professional would advocate living out homosexual urges simply because a person has homosexual thoughts. You are trying to distill a highly complicated process to one conclusion and this why the answer is no, based on your very simplistic assertion there is no way of telling what a professional would say or do — what are the issues? how are they impacting life? what does the client want? What are the aims of therapy? All of these questions would need to be examined and considered. I am pretty sure though will not believe this.
Yes, let’s make it complicated. :rolleyes: I brought up objectives of both the patient and therapist in the scenario. None of the factors you raised to prove a ‘highly complicated process’ were meant to be overlooked.
Your perception of ethics is again misinformed. You are misreading the code, it can not betaken in solitude, away from a clinical example and as above the ethics derive from the patient situation not from the professional’s personal point of view. Although i am sure you will tell me that you know better.
Is there a post from you that is free of low blows? You make dishing them out an art.

There is no question that the patient’s interest is supreme. But you are in denial if you don’t think that therapy from the point of view of therapists is free from setting of objectives and promotion of a certain view. The dominant professional mental health associations limit its members by its rejection that unwanted same sex attraction and homosexual behavior deserve treatment.
Whilst this conversation started as a discussion about DSM, which you were more than clear on should have kept homosexual in – it is now spreading beyond that question.
I am more than happy to discuss these points but ask that you consider the following.
My stance against the DSM inclusion was just that. To try and use that to “bash” a whole profession which includes professionals beyond psychiatrists, (i am waiting for you to realize that i am not training to be a psychiatrist but a psychologist!) is generalizing across nearly 500,000 licensed professionals in mental health. You can’t make sweeping statements and suggest they are the normal behaviors of people that work in the mental health arena.
Oh yes, I have! You just jumped the gun about the linked references (the number of psychiatrists, not psychologists, voting on the removal of homosexuality from the DSM) I provided were necessarily relating to psychologists, although their specialty piggybacks on psychiatry. Hello, you have made more than enough posts about your pursuit of doctoral credential in psychology.

I do have praises for the Catholic Medical Association, Dr. Fitzgibbons and company, necessarily including non-physician therapists who are proud to be Catholics in their practice of their profession.

Further, you may have missed Post #97, which was not directed to you but another poster. Do look into what I said in that post and the link I provided, Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness. Now, let me caution again to keep your knee jerk reaction in check. Read it first and consider the source.
You are suggesting that homosexuals acts are intrinsically linked to someone simply being homosexual. By this i mean you seem to take it as a given that a homosexual will have sex. That is not fair or reasonable. They are a lot of people who accept they find same sex people attractive but don’t act on it. They aren’t advocating same sex marriage or adoption. You are broad stroking an entire population group and whether you accept that or not its discrimination.
You misread my posts. Show me where in this thread the post or posts on which you base that I think or suggested all homosexuals necessarily engage in homogenital acts. Are you not making sweeping conclusions?

Homosexual activists and the gay-affirming APA are advocating SS"M" and adoption. I did not say homosexuals, as in all homosexuals. Clear enough for you? In real life, I have homosexual friends who are celibate and not promoting SS"M" and gay adoption. On this forum, I have made connections with ex-gays (I know there is a school of thought out there that there are no former gays, just gays who suppress sexual expression) and self identified chaste gays, who are really served with a better self description of same sex attracted.
The issues with sex without marriage, marriage of same sex couples and adoption rights are a related but different conversation and some elements of this are open to heterosexuals as well - ie sex before marriage.
Definitely, a different conversation!
,
 
Based on a statement you made above, I raised a question that was still unanswered. Are you telling me that homosexuals who engage in homosexual acts do not exhibit maladjusted behaviors?
Apologies, there are a lot of posts and i haven’t intentionally not responded to something you have written.

The quote you have highlighted is out of context … it was written in the explanation of homosexuality not being in the DSM. To explain a disorder/disease in the DSM at its most basic but demonstrate psychopathology and maladjusted social behavior. homosexuality - the attraction to same sex people does not fir this. Again please consider this is simply the definition of attraction to same sex people. In this basis homosexuals function in society -they hold jobs, they pay bills, they are not distinguishable from anyone else by their actions in the functions of society.

Your comment is not about homosexuality itself, but about the act of homosexual sex. Do i believe this is behavior that i find maladjusted, yes, but let me clarify no more than i find heterosexual acts of sex outside of marriage maladjusted.

I have tried very hard to make this distinction more than once. My stance is not about being pro homosexual acts, pro homosexual marriage or adoption. It is simply been that homosexuality as in the sexual desire to same sex people is NOT a diagnosisable mental health disease. And this is what was written in the DSM. This is the point that i have been trying to articulate.

Then when you look at what is included in the DSM there are disorders which deal with sexual issues, including sexual desire disorders, sexual dysfunctions - the list is quite long. However these issues are not unique to homosexuals but also heterosexuals as well, hence they are not distinguished by gender attraction i diagnosis.
 
sniped for space wouldn’t an attraction to the same sex itself qualify as a maladjustment to society, since the basis of society (the family) necessitates a person’s attraction to the opposite sex?sniped again for space
I have just answered the society question in post #135 (i don’t know how to link to that) and forgot to quote your question there as well. If this is not clear please just ask me again.

Psychopathology is a term which refers to either the study of mental illness or mental distress or the manifestation of behaviours and experiences which may be indicative of mental illness or psychological impairment. It covers a wide variety of different professions. For example, a neuroscientist may focus on brain changes related to mental illness. A
psychiatrist may be interested in the descriptive psychopathology, which has the aim of describing the symptoms and syndromes of mental illness.

Basically for a disease/disorder to have identifiable psychopathology there has to be a way to distinguish it as such, with homosexual desire there isn’t. There’s no medical difference between a heterosexual person and a homosexual, there’s no DNA difference, no brain difference as well as no functional society difference (as i explained in post #135), hence there is no basis in psychopathology to diagnosis it as a mental health disease/disorder.

Remembering of course the difference between homosexual and the acts of homosexual sex. These are two different things.
I am not exactly sure what the problem here is. It seems that getting counseling or treatment for a currently accepted mental disease such as kleptomania involves some of what you here call brainwashingsniped for space
The quote you are referring to was in conjunction with my point of view on one particular psychiatric doctor, who is a strong advocate of conversion therapy. As he believes that you can change a person’s thoughts and desires. This is extremely unethical in any situation and means you abuse your position as a therapist to brain wash someone to your point of view. It is not accepted by the largest majority of the professionals that deal with mental health as it is very dangerous. There is no valid data that supports this action as a positive, although there are currently three research projects examining this so the results are not yet in on those particular examples.

The best way i can think of to explain the difference is to use a film to show what i mean. The Bourne Identity films, clearly at an extreme, has a character who was brain washed, his whole identity was “reformatted” basically. Or cults where people are brain washed to believe one person’s ideology, this is another good example of using psychology against someone inappropriately.

What the professional person does is not brain wash people at all, this is a huge misconception. Any professional will tell you that our role is not to dominate and “re-install” someone with a new psyche - as that is rarely if ever possible under ethical practice, but to built processes for people to manage themselves better in situations where they behave inappropriately, to manage their “trigger situations” better.

If we use the example of kleptomania, which has to do with antisocial personality disorders and criminality. A person treated for this will not suddenly not be a kleptomaniac thief because of therapy; they will however work with their therapist to cognitively change this behavior. For example they might be challenged to pick up the phone and call someone when they are feeling the overriding desire to steal something, or draw a picture in a notebook rather than take an object. It would completely depend on the person and how they feel they can re-channel this desire. It’s about supporting that person to manage themselves better in situations that trigger inappropriate reactions and behavior. They will also work to identify why they want to steal constantly, and examine and rethink these reasons.

Professionals working with people with mental health disease aim to manage symptoms and built appropriate behaviors for coping and healing. This is the same for any diagnosis, for example schizophrenia isn’t cured, the symptoms and distress that a person maybe suffering can be managed through medication and counseling. But if they stopped their medication or counseling they run a risk of exhibiting these distressing behaviors again.
I hope that answers your question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top