I need help with something

[essie7777]

Also, I totally don’t understand your comparing that to Catholicism, which I have seen you use two or three times in this thread sniped for space

You are right i have used Catholicism a couple of times and also other examples of marginalized populations, such a African-American, women, blind people, Native Americans etc. to try and demonstrate a point.

If the DSM (which is what started this conversation) is used as a tool to classify people based on cultural bias as having a diagnosisable mental health disease/disorder, simply because they are a minority group and not based on empirical science (which is what the DSM is for) then surely we open the path for all of these groups including Catholicism to be a mental health disease/disorder.

Catholic faith is something most people in secular think they know and understand. But in reality they only understand what they misconstrue and misinterpret. I am constantly told as a Catholic I’m anti women rights, pro-AIDS(because we don’t believe in barrier contraception), old fashioned, anti-homosexuality; the list is pretty endless and when i talk to other Catholics they hear the same thing.

So culturally we are seen as bizarre strange people with wonky out of steps beliefs and put our faith in the unseen and acts we never witnessed every day. On this basis people suggest we are “mental”, we suffer an illness of delusion. Should we then be listed in the DSM as suffering a mental health disease/disorder because of this? There’s no evidence for it, no maladjusted social behavior, no psychopathology. The same as there isn’t for homosexual, African Americans, Native Americans, etc.

This is not a “popular” comment/question as seen on CAF not just this thread. The automatic comments accuse me of being an activist; suggest i am not really Catholic. These responses do nothing but emphasize, in my opinion, that the position being discussed is discriminatory. If it wasn’t wouldn’t there be a push for all of these examples to be included in the DSM or as Catholics are we supposed to simply advocate the inclusion of those beliefs (with no scientific evidence) which we, as a faith, agree is a mental health illness. Do we include those who have IVF against Church teachings, those who have a divorce, those people who cheat on their spouse, those who use contraception etc.? Are all these people now suffering a diagnosisable mental health disease/disorder?

The Church acknowledges there is no psychological cause for homosexuality, so why try to define it as a mental health disease with no scientific basis, if the Church states there is no way to identify it through psychopathology?

That is the point I have been trying to make.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
The Church acknowledges there is no psychological cause for homosexuality, so why try to define it as a mental health disease with no scientific basis, if the Church states there is no way to identify it through psychopathology?

That is the point I have been trying to make.

Wrong! The CCC does not say what you say about the cause of homosexuality is. Nor does she say that there is no way to identify it through psychopathology. She simply expressed that is largely unexplained.

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
!

 

[essie7777]

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

There is ZERO evidence about there being a biological difference between people who are homosexual or heterosexual. There’s no DNA strand to indicate it, no difference in brain scans, no difference in anything biologically between the two --hence the problem with trying to define homosexual attraction as being anything but naturally occurring.
Scientifically as it has no distinguishable differences to heterosexual attraction which is considered to be naturally occurring without proof to the contrary it is considered to be a naturally occurring as heterosexual desire.

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…”

Sociopathy is not a mental disorder under that term - antisocial personality disorders are. These cover a wide range of behavior and all of them have in common a diagnosis of social maladjustment. There are pages of diagnostic considerations for these issues that:

Essentially demonstrating a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues in adulthood. Specific behaviors fall into categories of aggression to people or animals, destruction of property, deceitfulness or theft and serious violation of rules. (DSM IV-TR)

Am not sure of the point you are making here … please explain.

 

[essie7777]

Wrong! The CCC does not say what you say about the cause of homosexuality is. Nor does she say that there is no way to identify it through psychopathology. She simply expressed that is largely unexplained.

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
!

You are confusing the two definitions again: there is a difference between homosexuality and homosexual acts. And no where have i disagreed with your position on homosexual acts.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

You are confusing the two definitions again: there is a difference between homosexuality and homosexual acts. And no where have i disagreed with your position on homosexual acts.

Nay. I and a host of Catholic members of CAF know the difference, what is the condition and what is the act, what is not sinful and what is sinful.
,

 

[essie7777]

I read all that you wrote but have snipped it down for space.

But if sexual desire is excessive and uncontrolled, it degenerates into lust and can lead to sins such as masturbation, fornication, adultery, etc. …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.

There are plenty of diagnosisable mental health disorders that deal with the maladjusted sexual behavior (acts of sexual behavior not attraction). These are not gender specific. I am unsure then what your point is here, as i have never stated that acts of sexual behavior are not credible medical mental health disorders, simply that they are not gender specific.

…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

You are twisting the definition of lust for your own gain here. Lust is not defined by gender. it is an defined explanation of behavior.

Lust: From Merriam-Webster online
1a : pleasure, delight
b : personal inclination : wish
2: usu. intense or unbridled sexual desire : lasciviousness
3a : an intense longing : craving
b : enthusiasm, eagerness

…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.

I think it has already been well established that there is no psychological condition of homosexuality. As in previous posts there is no biological difference between an heterosexual and a homosexual, no DNA strands different, no difference in brain scans, no definable difference in functioning of people in society. If 5 people were placed in front of you 3 who were homosexual and they didn’t tell you they were attracted to the same sex, i’m curious how do you tell them apart? Would it be by their house, their job, their clothes, their car? The key point here is you can’t. There is no psychological basis for your conclusion.

Anyway by the same token these sins you list are prevalent whether you are homosexual or not. So do we now define heterosexuality as a psychological condition? Do we make it an abhorrent tendency as you are suggesting here?

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.

There is no unique chemical or physical change for homosexual feelings. They are the same for heterosexuals there is no gender distinction. This has been proven constantly. The Church can not p(name removed by moderator)oint any psychological genesis, so why do you believe you can?

What you write is interesting but not gender specific. Everything you discuss can be symptomatic of heterosexual and homosexual desire gone awry (for want of a better phrase)… this is the problem with your position.

when you get past the gender attraction the acts which are absolutely maladjusted and immoral are not confined to homosexuals - pre-marital sex, excessive sexual partners, excessive sexual desire, lust out of control etc. Hence these are defined in the DSM without gender as a factor. They are universal.

You seem to be trying to attribute these inappropriately to being something distinctly more significant in homosexual attraction and that is fundamentally false,

 

[St_Francis]

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.

Why is it that homosexual inclination is not a sign of maladjustment in and of itself? You seem to be saying that leaving aside homosexual inclination, homosexuals don’t necessarily have any symptoms, but why is it that homosexual inclination is not in and of itself a symptom?

…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.

Altho, of course, it is distinguished by the homosexual inclination itself. It’s not like there exists *no *difference at all.

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.

So there has to be either 1. a medical difference (what does that mean, exactly?), 2. a genetic difference, or 3. a difference in social functioning.

What about the differences found between homosexual and heterosexual brains? news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm*

And again, why does the inclination itself not count as “a functional society difference”?

Remembering of course the difference between homosexual and the acts of homosexual sex. *These are two different things.

Altho there may be a connection, no?

What I am saying is not that the connection makes the temptation anything more than a temptation, but that people who don’t have the temptation usually don’t commit the sin, right?

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. *

So, conversion therapy is in and of itself an abusive and unethical goal? Or is it some of the techniques which are considered unethical?

Completely setting aside the question of effectiveness… if a man with homosexual inclination wanted to change, what would be the problem if the techniques themselves were not wrong?*

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.

Funny you should use that as your example, I just finished reading that book last night! But they didn’t go into a lot of detail, and I’m not sure that this has ever been done in real life.

But we are not talking here about a complete replacement of a person’s psyche with another. When professionals use Antabuse, aren’t they trying to change the person? Aren’t they going further than merely helping people build new structures for themselves?*

And what about anti-depressants? I have heard from many sources that they kind of diminish one’s emotions and that certainly seems like a major change, going much further than simply helping them to build new structures.

Or cults where people are brain washed to believe one person’s ideology, this is another good example of using psychology against someone inappropriately.

Well, of course anything along these lines which is not entered into completely voluntarily would be unethical.

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.

I find this a little confusing… it seems like you are saying that no mental health professional ever tries to actually cure someone, because that would be unethical? They aim to leave patients dependent on medications and counseling and symptom management rather than actually curing them?

 

[rom422]

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’m glad that you admitted the fact that homosexual acts are maladjusted. I agree with you. I am also accepting the fact that heterosexual acts of sex outside of marriage are maladjusted behavior. We have an agreement on that, too. In moral theology we would simply call both of them sins, or morally disordered acts.

Now let me bring this discussion to the next phase. If stealing, for example, is a sin, then the desire to steal is also a sin. The first is against the 7th commandment (“You shall not steal”), the second is against the 10th commandment (“You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods”). In like manner, if adultery is a sin, then the desire to commit adultery is also a sin, or a moral disorder. The first is against the 6th commandment (“You shall not commit adultery), the second is against the 9th commandment (“You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife”). If we apply this to homosexuality, we can say that if homosexual acts are sinful, then the desire to engage in homosexual acts is also sinful, or morally disordered.

However, we must now distinguish between the mere inclination to do something from the actual desire to do something. If a person has a tendency or inclination to steal, it does not mean that he desires to steal, because desire is a different act – an act of the will – which is different from the mere impulse to act. The inclination to steal is a psychic or psychological disorder, but is not a sin. The kleptomaniac who is feeling an impulse to steal is not committing a sin because of that inclination, but is suffering a disorder in his soul (You are free to call this disorder whatever you want to call it – personality disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, or whatever you want to call it). But when the kleptomaniac desires to steal, or actually steals something, then he or she commits a sin, or a morally disordered act. (Of course, I will grant that the culpability, or the gravity of the sin, will be reduced by the strength of the impulse, and by other factors.) In like manner, a man who is sexually attracted to a woman is not necessarily committing a sin. Attraction is not the same thing as desire. The mere sexual attraction to a person of the opposite sex is even quite natural and healthy, for our reproductive organs are naturally ordained toward the sexual union of man and woman. However, if this man desires to have sex with the woman, or actually has sex with this woman, then the act could be sinful or not sinful depending on their particular circumstances. If the woman is not his wife, then the act is sinful. But if the woman is his wife, then the act is not a sin at all.

But I want to call your attention to the sexual attraction itself between man and woman being “normal,” because our reproductive organs are designed to function toward this kind of union. It is unlike the impulse to steal suffered by a kleptomaniac. The kleptomaniac impulse – to take something that he knows does not belong to him - is a disorder with no natural basis. It is unnatural and abnormal. A man’s sexual attraction for a woman, however, is not a disorder at all, but is part of nature’s design, and is ordered toward the preservation of the species. It is healthy, and it is normal. Of course, if this attraction becomes excessive or overwhelming, then it becomes a disorder that we call “lust.” And while this is still not sin, it can lead to sin if this attraction is not controlled.

Now let us consider the case of the homosexual who feels a sexual attraction for a person of the same sex. This inclination is not yet the desire to engage in homosexual act, but a mere tendency toward it. Therefore, this inclination or tendency is not yet itself a sin. But, like the impulse to steal suffered by a kleptomaniac, and unlike the simple sexual attraction felt by a man for a woman, this inclination is also disordered in itself, because it has no natural basis, and even runs counter to the special design of our reproductive organs which are ordained only toward the union of man and woman. Therefore, the homosexual inclination IS a disorder, an unnatural or abnormal inclination, similar in some respects to the unnatural and abnormal inclination to steal suffered by the kleptomaniac.

The BIG question now is this: If the unnatural, abnormal, and unhealthy impulses suffered by the kleptomaniac deserves to be treated and helped by a health professional trained to handle this case, why should the same-sex inclinations and tendencies suffered by a homosexual not be treated and helped by a similarly qualified health professional? The problem I see with making homosexuality appear as a normal phenomenon in the human species is that we would be depriving the homosexual of his right to be helped in controlling his or her unnatural and abnormal tendencies.

Note that the objectively disordered nature of the homosexual inclinations demands that the homosexual be helped correspondingly. The issue here is not whether or not the homosexual is mentally sick. I can easily grant that he is not mentally sick, because whether a person will be labeled as mentally sick or not depends to a large extent on how you define “mentally sick.” But if we use common sense principles, we see that the homosexual needs help, just like the kleptomaniac, and those suffering from addiction, OCD, etc.

 

[essie7777]

Why is it that homosexual inclination is not a sign of maladjustment in and of itself? You seem to be saying that leaving aside homosexual inclination, homosexuals don’t necessarily have any symptoms, but why is it that homosexual inclination is not in and of itself a symptom?..Altho, of course, it is distinguished by the homosexual inclination itself. It’s not like there exists *no *difference at all.

I’ve tried to explain this before but got “jumped all over”, but will try again.

An attraction is something unique to everybody and is simply that; something someone finds attractive. It is not an action. The depth of desire is only sexual preference, it is nothing more than superficial tastes and preferences.

Basically therein lies the basis of distinguishing why it can not be a symptom of anything as it is not a behavior in itself.

Your point that the inclination is different could be used to justify and distinguish why people find different things attractive in opposite sex attraction; short, blonde, hairy, sporty, more couch potato like etc. You are now trying to define attraction which is not a maladjusted behavior, it does not exhibit an inability to function in society, it does not exhibit anti social behavior – it is simply an attraction, again not an action.

]So there has to be either 1. a medical difference (what does that mean, exactly?), 2. a genetic difference, or 3. a difference in social functioning. What about the differences found between homosexual and heterosexual brains?news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm*
And again, why does the inclination itself not count as “a functional society difference”?

When examining sexual preference as a medical/biological basis for disease definition, the problem arises that there is no discernible distinguishing biology that impacts a person whether someone is homosexual or heterosexual. DNA, brain scans, physiological indicators (okay mildly ridiculous but its not like homosexuals have big neon signs imprinted in their skin so we can see it for example). There is also no differences between how these two groups function in society -how they go about their daily life, their job, their food choices etc etc. It’s highly possible that amongst people you know that there may be someone with homosexual attraction, if they are not “out” how do you know? The point is you don’t.

The study quoted in the BBC link - i looked up the actual paper and read it – have to say a thrillingingly dry read ! The study was looking at whether there is a biological action pre-natal that determines sexuality. They found a small difference in an inner ear nerve cell, however they only found this difference in homosexual or bisexual women, concluding they have minutely less sensitive hearing. The research has been refined and peer reviewed over 190 times and the conclusion is this is not significantly replicated in other studies to be conclusive and holds no impact on sexuality since studies with different participants found similar results crossing sexuality groups. Such as there is no discernible difference in this inner ear nerve cell between homosexual men versus heterosexual men. Thus in the 12 years since it has been shown to be an unsupported conclusion.

What I am saying is not that the connection makes the temptation anything more than a temptation, but that people who don’t have the temptation usually don’t commit the sin, right?

The temptation is there whether homosexual or heterosexual. It is not a direct correlation between homosexuality and sexual acts against Catholic teaching … these behaviors are open to both groups … pre-marital sex is wrong whether you are homosexual or heterosexual.
CONT next post

 

[essie7777]

Cont

So, conversion therapy is in and of itself an abusive and unethical goal? Or is it some of the techniques which are considered unethical?.. Completely setting aside the question of effectiveness… if a man with homosexual inclination wanted to change, what would be the problem if the techniques themselves were not wrong?*

Conversion therapy is unbelievable dangerous and abusive in any circumstances.

That’s a very difficult question to answer – what is the person trying to achieve? Fundamentally trying to change what someone finds attractive is a dangerous road to try and go along. I suppose the best way i can put it do you think that therapy can change what you find attractive? Would that be ethical? Or is it more ethical to figure out why someone wants to change, what their aim is and see if they actually want to change or are simply not coping with this inclination? For example they may be a Catholic for example with no intention to marry but feeling guilty about what they find attractive. If they are not acting on this, do i as a professional have the right to try and change their psyche for my comfort level? As i said its a difficult question and one which from experience, and i do practice in mental health, rarely comes up --i personally haven’t come across it in 4 years.

Funny you should use that as your example, I just finished reading that book last night! But they didn’t go into a lot of detail, and I’m not sure that this has ever been done in real life.

I only though of it as it was on tv again yesterday!

But we are not talking here about a complete replacement …snip snip for space…Well, of course anything along these lines which is not entered into completely voluntarily would be unethical.

That’s what conversion therapy is… a complete replacement.
It is unethical in any circumstance because a dominant person, usually the professional in therapeutic relationships, should never use the vulnerable nature of someone(and most clients are there because they are vulnerable over some issue) against that person. Cults use this all the time, people separated from their families for whatever reason are driven further away from then convinced no one else cares for them etc…all stages of brain washing, isolation, dependence etc.

Antabuse is a drug to stop biological dependence on alcohol … i’m not overly familiar with it but it doesn’t change the psychological issues of alcoholism only the biological.

Anti depressants are a major cause of controversy. As a rule i am not an advocate. However having said that i have a good friend, who with her permission will allow me to share her story. She is bi-polar and the anti depressants she is on help her to stay out of a manic state, which is both distressing and causes her to be unable to function normally, in her job, her marriage etc. Again these medications change the bio-chemistry of people suffering specific disorders to prevent maladjusted behavior.

I do however think as a rule they are over prescribed, usually by primary care doctors as people have a predisposed prejudice against seeking mental health help because of the stigma.

snip for space…They aim to leave patients dependent on medications and counseling and symptom management rather than actually curing them?

Not at all the example i used was probably not the best as schizophrenia has both psychological behaviors as well as bio-chemical symptoms. Medication deals with one and therapy with the other.

Another example is PTSD, a therapist does not try to change the situation that cause PTSD, rather they work to help them cope better, to ensure that their memories and feelings do not overtake their lives and make it impossible for them to function. PTSD in itself is a description, the symptoms can be varied and numerous: sleep disorders, hyper vigilance, hyper arousal, relationship issues. As a therapist you work through these one at a time, building with the client better ways to cope and function. This doesn’t take away the PTSD event, simply manages the symptoms.

It’s all relative to how the professional “judges” their work, whether they see it as cure or not. Mental health care is not just psychiatrists or psychologists; its licensed counselors, school counselors, pastoral counselors, nurses, grief specialists etc. It’s a big field. Most don’t view themselves as offering a cure simply a path to support a client to be more effective in their behavior and coping skills depending on the circumstances that client comes to therapy for.

 

[essie7777]

I’m glad that you admitted the fact that homosexual acts are maladjusted. I agree with you.

I have never said anything different!

again i have read everything you wrote.

snip snip… for space
The BIG question now is this: If the unnatural, abnormal, and unhealthy impulses suffered by the kleptomaniac deserves to be treated and helped by a health professional trained to handle this case, why should the same-sex inclinations and tendencies suffered by a homosexual not be treated and helped by a similarly qualified health professional?

You thoughts are in my opinion a valiant attempt to try and justify classifying homosexual attraction as a mental disorder but your conclusion led question is where it falls apart …

A kleptomaniac is only in therapy for their action not their thoughts. So you yourself have argued that the thought is not enough to justify mental health care. As the mental health care is to stop the maladjusted ACTION once it has exhibited as a anti social maladjusted behavior.

But if we use common sense principles, we see that the homosexual needs help, just like the kleptomaniac, and those suffering from addiction, OCD, etc

Again the flaw in your own argument is you are comparing an action with a potential action. You can not categorize and aim to treat someone for something they may or may not do. You as a Catholic believe homosexual tendency needs help, the Catholic Church and some Catholics like me don’t agree with you. They need help if they act on that attraction, not simply because they have it.

Strangely if you take your hard line position of trying to get me to use the word disorder for anything subjectively wrong and not a sin out of the equation, we are actually not far apart in our opinions.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I’m glad that you admitted the fact that homosexual acts are maladjusted. I agree with you. I am also accepting the fact that heterosexual acts of sex outside of marriage are maladjusted behavior. We have an agreement on that, too. In moral theology we would simply call both of them sins, or morally disordered acts.

Now let me bring this discussion to the next phase. If stealing, for example, is a sin, then the desire to steal is also a sin. The first is against the 7th commandment (“You shall not steal”), the second is against the 10th commandment (“You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods”). In like manner, if adultery is a sin, then the desire to commit adultery is also a sin, or a moral disorder. The first is against the 6th commandment (“You shall not commit adultery), the second is against the 9th commandment (“You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife”). If we apply this to homosexuality, we can say that if homosexual acts are sinful, then the desire to engage in homosexual acts is also sinful, or morally disordered.

However, we must now distinguish between the mere inclination to do something from the actual desire to do something. If a person has a tendency or inclination to steal, it does not mean that he desires to steal, because desire is a different act – an act of the will – which is different from the mere impulse to act. The inclination to steal is a psychic or psychological disorder, but is not a sin. The kleptomaniac who is feeling an impulse to steal is not committing a sin because of that inclination, but is suffering a disorder in his soul (You are free to call this disorder whatever you want to call it – personality disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, or whatever you want to call it). But when the kleptomaniac desires to steal, or actually steals something, then he or she commits a sin, or a morally disordered act. (Of course, I will grant that the culpability, or the gravity of the sin, will be reduced by the strength of the impulse, and by other factors.) In like manner, a man who is sexually attracted to a woman is not necessarily committing a sin. Attraction is not the same thing as desire. The mere sexual attraction to a person of the opposite sex is even quite natural and healthy, for our reproductive organs are naturally ordained toward the sexual union of man and woman. However, if this man desires to have sex with the woman, or actually has sex with this woman, then the act could be sinful or not sinful depending on their particular circumstances. If the woman is not his wife, then the act is sinful. But if the woman is his wife, then the act is not a sin at all.

But I want to call your attention to the sexual attraction itself between man and woman being “normal,” because our reproductive organs are designed to function toward this kind of union. It is unlike the impulse to steal suffered by a kleptomaniac. The kleptomaniac impulse – to take something that he knows does not belong to him - is a disorder with no natural basis. It is unnatural and abnormal. A man’s sexual attraction for a woman, however, is not a disorder at all, but is part of nature’s design, and is ordered toward the preservation of the species. It is healthy, and it is normal. Of course, if this attraction becomes excessive or overwhelming, then it becomes a disorder that we call “lust.” And while this is still not sin, it can lead to sin if this attraction is not controlled.

Now let us consider the case of the homosexual who feels a sexual attraction for a person of the same sex. This inclination is not yet the desire to engage in homosexual act, but a mere tendency toward it. Therefore, this inclination or tendency is not yet itself a sin. But, like the impulse to steal suffered by a kleptomaniac, and unlike the simple sexual attraction felt by a man for a woman, this inclination is also disordered in itself, because it has no natural basis, and even runs counter to the special design of our reproductive organs which are ordained only toward the union of man and woman. Therefore, the homosexual inclination IS a disorder, an unnatural or abnormal inclination, similar in some respects to the unnatural and abnormal inclination to steal suffered by the kleptomaniac.

The BIG question now is this: If the unnatural, abnormal, and unhealthy impulses suffered by the kleptomaniac deserves to be treated and helped by a health professional trained to handle this case, why should the same-sex inclinations and tendencies suffered by a homosexual not be treated and helped by a similarly qualified health professional? The problem I see with making homosexuality appear as a normal phenomenon in the human species is that we would be depriving the homosexual of his right to be helped in controlling his or her unnatural and abnormal tendencies.

Note that the objectively disordered nature of the homosexual inclinations demands that the homosexual be helped correspondingly. The issue here is not whether or not the homosexual is mentally sick. I can easily grant that he is not mentally sick, because whether a person will be labeled as mentally sick or not depends to a large extent on how you define “mentally sick.” But if we use common sense principles, we see that the homosexual needs help, just like the kleptomaniac, and those suffering from addiction, OCD, etc.

What a great post! Perfect rivers of logic leading to one place, the only conclusion that makes sense, which is the employment of common sense principles in extending a hand to our suffering homosexual brothers seeking for help.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
You as a Catholic believe homosexual tendency needs help, the Catholic Church and some Catholics like me don’t agree with you. They need help if they act on that attraction, not simply because they have it.
…

Hubris. Some Catholics may agree with you but you can’t claim the Catholic Church agrees with you. You misinterpret the CC position, attributing a position to the Church that she has not stated.
,

 

[St_Francis]

I have never said anything different!

again i have read everything you wrote.

You thoughts are in my opinion a valiant attempt to try and justify classifying homosexual attraction as a mental disorder but your conclusion led question is where it falls apart …

A kleptomaniac is only in therapy for their action not their thoughts. So you yourself have argued that the thought is not enough to justify mental health care. As the mental health care is to stop the maladjusted ACTION once it has exhibited as a anti social maladjusted behavior.

Again the flaw in your own argument is you are comparing an action with a potential action. You can not categorize and aim to treat someone for something they may or may not do. You as a Catholic believe homosexual tendency needs help, the Catholic Church and some Catholics like me don’t agree with you. They need help if they act on that attraction, not simply because they have it.

Strangely if you take your hard line position of trying to get me to use the word disorder for anything subjectively wrong and not a sin out of the equation, we are actually not far apart in our opinions.

This doesn’t make sense to me. If I am kleptomaniac who is disturbed by the desire to steal but who does not actually steal, I can’t get mental help? Why then call it mental help, mental health, mental disease?

 

[essie7777]

This doesn’t make sense to me. If I am kleptomaniac who is disturbed by the desire to steal but who does not actually steal, I can’t get mental help? Why then call it mental help, mental health, mental disease?

You wouldn’t be a kleptomaniac if you don’t steal to the point of high levels of obsession and frequency – you can be a thief and not a kleptomaniac.

Kleptomania is only seen in about 5% of people that steal and traditionally a symptom itself of something else. For example a relatively common scenario sees kleptomania as a result of abuse. The maladjusted behavior – kleptomania - in this case is symptomatic of someone trying to validate themselves as deserving by taking things compulsively that make them feel good.

 

[St_Francis]

…The study quoted in the BBC link - i looked up the actual paper and read it – have to say a thrillingingly dry read ! The study was looking at whether there is a biological action pre-natal that determines sexuality. They found a small difference in an inner ear nerve cell, however they only found this difference in homosexual or bisexual women, concluding they have minutely less sensitive hearing. The research has been refined and peer reviewed over 190 times and the conclusion is this is not significantly replicated in other studies to be conclusive and holds no impact on sexuality since studies with different participants found similar results crossing sexuality groups. Such as there is no discernible difference in this inner ear nerve cell between homosexual men versus heterosexual men. Thus in the 12 years since it has been shown to be an unsupported conclusion…

I think you must have found the wrong article as the article I linked to discussed differences in siZe and use of the hemispheres of the brain and only came out 4 years ago.

 

[rom422]

There are plenty of diagnosisable mental health disorders that deal with the maladjusted sexual behavior (acts of sexual behavior not attraction). These are not gender specific. I am unsure then what your point is here, as i have never stated that acts of sexual behavior are not credible medical mental health disorders, simply that they are not gender specific.

In my text I was merely pointing out that just as there is a disordered inclination or tendency among homosexuals, there is also a corresponding disordered inclination or tendency among heterosexuals, which – for lack of a better term - I called “lust.” Please read my next paragraph below which further explains my use of this term.

You are twisting the definition of lust for your own gain here. Lust is not defined by gender. it is an defined explanation of behavior.

Lust: From Merriam-Webster online
1a : pleasure, delight
b : personal inclination : wish
2: usu. intense or unbridled sexual desire : lasciviousness
3a : an intense longing : craving
b : enthusiasm, eagerness

The word “lust” can be used to refer to “an excessive desire for sex.” In which case it is a disorder that you find among both homosexuals and heterosexuals, and you find it also among men and women. But the same word can be used to refer to any excessive craving for something, such as the “lust for power,” or the “lust for money,” etc. It is not always used to refer to the excessive craving for sex in general. In my text, since I was speaking of lust as you find it among the heterosexuals, I was using the word to mean an “excessive sexual craving for a person of the opposite sex.” Therefore, I was not twisting the meaning of the word, since the word could actually be used in different ways with different meanings. I was just stating precisely in what sense I was using the word “lust”.

I think it has already been well established that there is no psychological condition of homosexuality.

There you go again. You are assuming that I am using the word “condition” to mean pathological condition. Just to be perfectly clear, I am not using the word in the medical sense. I am using the word “condition” in common man’s language to mean the status or state of one’s sexuality. It is just exactly as when I ask, “Is your car in good condition?” I am not implying sickness or illness.

Anyway by the same token these sins you list are prevalent whether you are homosexual or not. So do we now define heterosexuality as a psychological condition?

Heterosexuality is also a psychological condition, if you understand the word “condition” in the sense that I am using it – as a state of sexuality. It is not a mental sickness just because heterosexuals commit sins. However, heterosexual people also have their own disorders and sins.

Do we make it an abhorrent tendency as you are suggesting here?

For heterosexuals, lust (understood as an excessive sexual craving for a person of the opposite sex) is not only an undesirable tendency, but a dangerous one that should be controlled.

There is no unique chemical or physical change for homosexual feelings. They are the same for heterosexuals there is no gender distinction. This has been proven constantly. The Church can not p(name removed by moderator)oint any psychological genesis, so why do you believe you can?

It is just my opinion that homosexual feelings or inclinations also have physiological roots. I didn’t say that I could prove it nor that I knew everything that happens inside of a person’s body. I said I am not a doctor. You are the one who is claiming more than you actually know. You should not dogmatically say, “There is no unique chemical or physical change for homosexual feelings.” The truth is, you presently do not know of any, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t any. The right way to say it is this: “We currently do not know of any unique chemical or physical change for homosexual feelings.” That way you keep yourself open to further developments that the future might bring.

What you write is interesting but not gender specific. Everything you discuss can be symptomatic of heterosexual and homosexual desire gone awry (for want of a better phrase)… this is the problem with your position.

when you get past the gender attraction the acts which are absolutely maladjusted and immoral are not confined to homosexuals - pre-marital sex, excessive sexual partners, excessive sexual desire, lust out of control etc. Hence these are defined in the DSM without gender as a factor. They are universal.

The problem with that approach – where you don’t distinguish lust in people with different sex orientation - is that you might start applying treatments, which are suitable only to homosexuals, to people who are heterosexual. I certainly don’t want a psychiatrist or psychologist advising me on how to control my lust for a man when my problem is my lust for a woman.

 

[essie7777]

I think you must have found the wrong article as the article I linked to discussed differences in siZe and use of the hemispheres of the brain and only came out 4 years ago.

Can you repost the link then please?

 

[essie7777]

Hubris. Some Catholics may agree with you but you can’t claim the Catholic Church agrees with you. You misinterpret the CC position, attributing a position to the Church that she has not stated.

You disagree, that doesn’t make your position right. I am as confident in my interpretation as you are. I also don’t presume to hold my position without questioning it with people i trust; my local parish priest, my diocese’s vocational priest(who is helping me with canon law issues in my profession) as well as the writings of the Vatican, USCCB and the CCC. I’m pretty sure that’s not hubris - which i am also sure you are aware is a word defined as having exaggerated pride and self confidence. You have again, disagreed by personally attacking.

Consider the following comments before you are so quick to decry my position as hubris, Please note i have purposely placed the quotes from the Congregation For the Doctrine of Faith first as this was the weightier document you felt i should refer to. Note there is the comment about how the Church by removing the labels homosexual and heterosexual as defining a person (i have highlighted that in red) offers a much needed context for the care of humans. This hardly suggests we identify and treat people by labels the Church decrees are not needed to care for the human person.

(Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [CDF], 1986, #3.)
“The particular inclination of a homosexual person is not a sin.”

(Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [CDF], 1986, #10.)
“The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.”

(Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [CDF], 1986, #16.)
“The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a “heterosexual” or a “homosexual” and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.”

(Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [CDF], 1986, #18.)
“The Lord Jesus promised, “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free” (Jn. 8:32). Scripture bids us speak the truth in love (cf. Eph. 4:15). The God who is at once truth and love calls the Church to minister to every man, woman and child with the pastoral solicitude of our compassionate Lord. It is in this spirit that we have addressed this Letter to the Bishops of the Church, with the hope that it will be of some help as they care for those whose suffering can only be intensified by error and lightened by truth.”

CONT NEXT POST

 

[essie7777]

CONT
Some other documents on the difference between homosexuality and the act of sex … as well as how we should treat people who are homosexual:

(National Conference of Catholic Bishops, [NCCB] 1991, pp 54-55.) “[There are ] persons for whom homosexuality is a permanent, seemingly irreversible sexual orientation. The medical and behavioral sciences do not yet know what causes a person to be homosexual.”

“(Always Our Children, [AOC], 1998, p.6.) It seems appropriate to understand sexual orientation ( heterosexual or homosexual) as a deep-seated dimension of one’s personality and to recognize its relative stability in a person….Generally, homosexual orientation is experienced as a given, not as something freely chosen. By itself, therefore, a homosexual orientation cannot be considered sinful, for morality presumes the freedom to choose….Sexual identity helps to define the unique persons we are and one component of our sexual identity is sexual orientation.”

(AOC, p.9, quoting the Catechism, #2358)
“It is not sufficient only to avoid unjust discrimination. Homosexual persons ‘must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity.’ ”

(The Many Faces of AIDS:A Gospel Response, 1987, United States Catholic Conference.)
“Those who are gay or lesbian…should not be objects of discrimination, injustice or violence. All of God’s sons and daughters, all members of our society, are entitled to the recognition of their full human dignity.”

(Human Sexuality 1991 USCCB)
“Homosexual [persons] should not suffer prejudice against their basic human rights….We call on all Christian citizens of good will to confront their own fears about homosexuality and to curb the humor and discrimination that offend homosexual persons.”

(Social Welfare Commission for the Bishops Conference of England and Wales, 1979.) “The Church has a serious responsibility to work for the elimination of any injustices perpetrated on homosexuals by society. As a group that has suffered more than its share of oppression and contempt, the homosexual community has particular claim upon the concerns of the Church.”

(The Prejudice Against Homosexuals and the Ministry of the Church, Washington State Catholic Conference, 1983)
"Church teaching indicates that even with regard to homogenital activity, no one except Almighty God can make certain judgments about the personal sinfulness of acts.”

(U.S. Bishops’ Pastoral Letter, To Live in Christ Jesus, November, 1976.)
"Homosexual activity…as distinguished from homosexual orientation, is morally wrong.”

(Human Sexuality USCCB 1991)
“To speak of the homosexual inclination as ‘objectively disordered’ does not mean that the homosexual person as such is evil or bad. Furthermore, the homosexual person is not the only one who has disordered tendencies or inclinations. All human beings are subject to some disordered tendencies.”

It certainly looks as if there is plenty of Church teaching and direction that distinguishes between homosexuality and the acts of sex. In context as Catholics we are certainly encouraged as a British phrase says not “to throw stones in glass houses”, we all suffer some disordered tendency and we are all encouraged to not act with “discrimination that offend homosexual persons.”.

I’d suggest that in light of these works, the CCC and the underlying basis of Catholic teaching, that your posts and it’s content are not quite as charitable and loving as you suppose.