L
LovedOne
Guest
**
Everything stands up to reason when held up in light of truth.
Which is where this topic will ultimately lead to. Truth.
Something you will NEVER find when you look to the secular, anti-God world.**
- Status
Everything stands up to reason when held up in light of truth.
Which is where this topic will ultimately lead to. Truth.
Something you will NEVER find when you look to the secular, anti-God world.**
2
2perfection
Guest
Gabriel Gale:
Obviously you will be grateful for having the record put straight.
Interestingly, you are now firming up the language to be technically correct (the best sort of correctness). You are referring to ‘hebephilia’ also called ‘ephebophilia’. Wiki has a page on this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia and that links to … en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty
That entry, interestingly enough finishes with the statements:
"the media, playing to a presumed public fascination with illicit sexuality, capitalize on sex scandals (such as the one involving the Catholic Church) that may also involve pederasty, conflating it with pedophilia.
"The Catholic Church itself is also conflating pederasty with pedophilia and child abuse as well as with homosexuality, and working for its suppression.
So, while you are busy trying to be precise, the Vatican currently says…
A Feb. 2, 1961, Vatican document, “Instruction on the Careful Selection and Training of Candidates for the States of Perfection and Sacred Orders,” made clear homosexuals should be barred from the priesthood.
“(Advancement) to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty.
Maybe you could write to your cardinal and ask that they separate out the two different ‘conditions’ to make clear that the church makes the same distinction you do.
we might add…
*Archbishop Edwin O’Brien, said earlier this month that most gay candidates for the priesthood struggle to remain celibate and the church must “stay on the safe side” *
stay on the safe side of what? clearly given earlier conflation the church remains confused as to what they are concerned with, the breaking of celibacy vows (as stated) or the belief that homosexual=pederast=protecting kids.
I didnt invoke Freund in this debate, that was done by Mark. So, if Freund is to be quoted then the rest of his work can be cited. In this instance his work was being misrepresented (by the religious anti-gay movement) here and in many other places.
Obviously you will be grateful for having the record put straight.
Interestingly, you are now firming up the language to be technically correct (the best sort of correctness). You are referring to ‘hebephilia’ also called ‘ephebophilia’. Wiki has a page on this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia and that links to … en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty
That entry, interestingly enough finishes with the statements:
"the media, playing to a presumed public fascination with illicit sexuality, capitalize on sex scandals (such as the one involving the Catholic Church) that may also involve pederasty, conflating it with pedophilia.
"The Catholic Church itself is also conflating pederasty with pedophilia and child abuse as well as with homosexuality, and working for its suppression.
So, while you are busy trying to be precise, the Vatican currently says…
A Feb. 2, 1961, Vatican document, “Instruction on the Careful Selection and Training of Candidates for the States of Perfection and Sacred Orders,” made clear homosexuals should be barred from the priesthood.
“(Advancement) to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty.
Maybe you could write to your cardinal and ask that they separate out the two different ‘conditions’ to make clear that the church makes the same distinction you do.
we might add…
*Archbishop Edwin O’Brien, said earlier this month that most gay candidates for the priesthood struggle to remain celibate and the church must “stay on the safe side” *
stay on the safe side of what? clearly given earlier conflation the church remains confused as to what they are concerned with, the breaking of celibacy vows (as stated) or the belief that homosexual=pederast=protecting kids.
2
2perfection
Guest
LovedOne said:
Please…
In order for something to stand up to reason you must accomodate all known facts. If you claim all swans are white and i find a black swan you cannot just ignore it and claim any factual basis. That is what I would call the Light of truth.
In you previous post you conflated kleptomania with homosexuality.
As demonstrated previously, you actually mistake homosexuality for Satyrias.
The Light of Truth (what you might call ‘facts’), as you put it, demonstrates that rampant copulation while making hot canapes did not occur. Reason would suggest you modify your conflation of pathalogical conditions with homosexuality. At the very least honesty would.
A reasonable assumption is that your arguments do not and cannot stand up to reason, or you would have argued from facts.
As it is bogey-man name calling such as ‘secular’ and ‘anti-God’ merely re-inforce these conclusions.
F
felra
Guest
F
felra
Guest
(continued):
.2perfection said:
Your language is getting too loose. Urges are not compulsions.
An urge can be controlled a compulsion is an irrestistable urge.
Again, an “irresistible urge” can be resisted with the desire and tools and skills to do so. You contradict yourself – you are using loose and sloopy language and psychology. Urges can be classified as compulsions, but and urger denoted by compulsion simply indicates the degree/severity of the [pathological] urge (“irresistble urge”).
*It is the prudent and responsible thing to do BEFORE someone is even offered to take a vow - to very carefully discern those who would have a DIFFICULTY keeping those vows. Heterosexual men included. *
. No surprise there, that has how the whole issue has arisen.
But its bad psychology and arguing from conclusions, failing to compare like with like.
I do not read any “mixing up” in the above post by LovedOne. You are the only one I see interjecting the term "“pathological uncontrollable urge …”. Who is guilty of failing to compare like with like? (hint: sexual desire–either ordered heterosexual or *disordered *homosexual).
From my read of your loose language (terms) and psychology and logic, your is “a bit of a mess” that needs cleaning. Care to remedy the error of your ways?
2
2perfection
Guest
LovedOne wrote:
Oh but here again you are SO wrong! A kleptomaniac most certainly CAN “stop himself” from stealing!
Hmmm, I’ll do a quick check
psychdirect.com/forensic/Criminology/impulse/kleptomania.htm
covenanthealth.com/Features/Health/Mental/MENT3151.cfm
psychnet-uk.com/dsm_iv/kleptomania.htm
library.thinkquest.org/26618/en-med-8.2.htm
healthinmind.com/english/klepto.htm
You are mixing up people who steal for other purposes (evidence: structured behaviour, choosing something they need or use, keeping the object) and say “oh I’m a kleptomaniac” for the real thing (unstructured, doesnt need the item, throws it away).
In no way does this compare to being gay, for example, I know several couples who have been together for over 20 years.
Nor does real kleptomania compare with going out on the pull (when you shave, choose nice clothes, look cool and choose good places) because that is a structured activity with a goal, not a compulsion.
Let me just take you through your logic.
A thief and a kleptomanic both steal. So, rather than deal with the range of obsessive-compulsice disorders and personality disorders, you pretend the two people are the same.
You then decide to compare homosexuality with kleptomania.
Now, as your version of a ‘kleptomainac’ has self control (which clinical kleptomaniacs do not, but dont let that bother you) you feel that even though gay men have self control they can be described as pathalogical.
What a pity your definition of kleptomania is actually wrong, and the comparison to homosexuality spurious.
*Next “A liar will size up the one he is considering lying to and if it would be too obvious that he is lying he will choose not to.” *
Oh but here again you are SO wrong! A kleptomaniac most certainly CAN “stop himself” from stealing!
Hmmm, I’ll do a quick check
psychdirect.com/forensic/Criminology/impulse/kleptomania.htm
covenanthealth.com/Features/Health/Mental/MENT3151.cfm
psychnet-uk.com/dsm_iv/kleptomania.htm
library.thinkquest.org/26618/en-med-8.2.htm
healthinmind.com/english/klepto.htm
You are mixing up people who steal for other purposes (evidence: structured behaviour, choosing something they need or use, keeping the object) and say “oh I’m a kleptomaniac” for the real thing (unstructured, doesnt need the item, throws it away).
In no way does this compare to being gay, for example, I know several couples who have been together for over 20 years.
Nor does real kleptomania compare with going out on the pull (when you shave, choose nice clothes, look cool and choose good places) because that is a structured activity with a goal, not a compulsion.
Let me just take you through your logic.
A thief and a kleptomanic both steal. So, rather than deal with the range of obsessive-compulsice disorders and personality disorders, you pretend the two people are the same.
You then decide to compare homosexuality with kleptomania.
Now, as your version of a ‘kleptomainac’ has self control (which clinical kleptomaniacs do not, but dont let that bother you) you feel that even though gay men have self control they can be described as pathalogical.
What a pity your definition of kleptomania is actually wrong, and the comparison to homosexuality spurious.
*Next “A liar will size up the one he is considering lying to and if it would be too obvious that he is lying he will choose not to.” *
2
2perfection
Guest
quote=felra:
Do you know what kleptomania is?
Did you read LovedOne compare kleptomania to homosexuality?
If the answer to these questions is ‘yes’ then you did read the mixing up, you simply didnt recognise the context shift.
[/quote]
You are the only one I see interjecting the term "“pathological uncontrollable urge …”. Who is guilty of failing to compare like with like? (hint: sexual desire–either ordered heterosexual or *disordered *homosexual).
Do you know what kleptomania is?
Did you read LovedOne compare kleptomania to homosexuality?
If the answer to these questions is ‘yes’ then you did read the mixing up, you simply didnt recognise the context shift.
[/quote]
2
2perfection
Guest
LovedOne wrote:
**
No sexual desire is “uncontrollable” to begin with. So please remove that silly and false notion from your vocabulary once and for all. We are not animals. We are human beings comprised of body and spirit with FREE WILL.**
Firstly, you’ll find that mental illnesses do exist, that do impare judgement, that they do require treatment and no matter how much you shout and scream and curdle in denial there are these thing called ‘psychiatrists’ and these other things called ‘hospitals’ where they are treated.
Further, not very detailed reading, will lead you to examples of sexually based compulsive disorders. Compulsive disorders are illnesses.
Once you have done this, you can then look at the justice system and the effects mental illnesses have on judgements and sentences handed down. You will see that in a lot of cases these are treated as mitigating factors because of impaired judgements, that is “impaired free will”.
I’ll stop there. I think I’ve made my point.
Mental illnesses do exist. And yes, that is a problem for free will, but homosexuality isnt amongst them.
**
No sexual desire is “uncontrollable” to begin with. So please remove that silly and false notion from your vocabulary once and for all. We are not animals. We are human beings comprised of body and spirit with FREE WILL.**
Firstly, you’ll find that mental illnesses do exist, that do impare judgement, that they do require treatment and no matter how much you shout and scream and curdle in denial there are these thing called ‘psychiatrists’ and these other things called ‘hospitals’ where they are treated.
Further, not very detailed reading, will lead you to examples of sexually based compulsive disorders. Compulsive disorders are illnesses.
Once you have done this, you can then look at the justice system and the effects mental illnesses have on judgements and sentences handed down. You will see that in a lot of cases these are treated as mitigating factors because of impaired judgements, that is “impaired free will”.
I’ll stop there. I think I’ve made my point.
Mental illnesses do exist. And yes, that is a problem for free will, but homosexuality isnt amongst them.
2
2perfection
Guest
LovedOne
The very DESIRE of a man to be attracted to another man is what constitues the disorder. You are avoiding the heart of the matter and deflecting off on this tangent of “urge” vs. “compulsion.”
The homosexual desire or attraction is what is “intrinsically disordered.” That is just a truth and a fact.
I’m not avoiding that issue, I am dealing with the grosser misrepresentations of these posts.
I am not sure you know what you wrote, but:
The very DESIRE of a man to be attracted to another man is what constitues the disorder
I am fairly surenone of the gay man I know ‘desired to desire men’. You think they sat there at age 13 and said “I want to fancy men…I’ll do that!”
You assume a choice that is not there, the logic is nonsense, based on the assumption that
The very DESIRE of a man to be attracted to another man is what constitues the disorder. You are avoiding the heart of the matter and deflecting off on this tangent of “urge” vs. “compulsion.”
The homosexual desire or attraction is what is “intrinsically disordered.” That is just a truth and a fact.
I’m not avoiding that issue, I am dealing with the grosser misrepresentations of these posts.
I am not sure you know what you wrote, but:
The very DESIRE of a man to be attracted to another man is what constitues the disorder
I am fairly surenone of the gay man I know ‘desired to desire men’. You think they sat there at age 13 and said “I want to fancy men…I’ll do that!”
You assume a choice that is not there, the logic is nonsense, based on the assumption that
- all men are heterosexual
- they decided they wanted to fancy men
F
felra
Guest
Hmmm, I’ll do a quick check2perfection said:
psychdirect.com/forensic/Criminology/impulse/kleptomania.htm
library.thinkquest.org/26618/en-med-8.2.htm
Hmmm, …your check was obviously too quick. You appear great at focusing at diagnosis, how about treatment of a pathology? I would direct you to the “TREATMENT” section of your DSM link above –http://www.psychdirect.com/forensic…kleptomania.htm – to read that succesfully treated A kleptomaniac most certainly CAN “stop himself” from stealing!
In fact, read this excerpt about treatment for kleptomania from your source link above – http://library.thinkquest.org/26618/en-med-8.2.htm – "Treatment – This disorder is rather easy to treat. It is important to find another occupation to replace the stealing activity. It is also very important to make the patient realize that others are harmed by the stealing activities."
The two do compare in certain salient aspects in that they BOTH are a pathological condition (i.e., something abnormal).
Again, you are wrong. Both can have precursors of ritualistic behavior to heighten arousal of the disordered desire as an antecedent to acting on the disordered desire/impulse.
Sequential logic aside, homosexuality and kleptomania are comparable in that both can have manifest symptomatic behaviors that indicate the presence an underlying
psychpathology. Likewise, both conditions can be abated, put into remission, and over time, become less taxing to manage or modify the actual source of disorder.
Wrong again, as your own citations have so notable pointed out (if only you would read beyond the diagnosis section).
Yes, this is entirely correct. Please, your fuzzy psycho-logic not backed by the facts is beginning to tire.
Again, you are wrong on both accounts.
*
**Next “A liar will size up the one he is considering lying to and if it would be too obvious that he is lying he will choose not to.” **
You seemed to have stumbled up on this quote quite extensively yourself.In fact, I would go as far as to say that you are striking out as a homosexual apologist.
C
Catilieth
Guest
The issue is not repentance or forgiveness, it has to do with suitability.
I am barred from the priesthood,no discussion, period,… because my gender is not suitable.
F
felra
Guest
I am not sure what you are not getting from the quote of LovedOne. Her quote is entirely accurate. You seem to be reading into her words.
By correctly labelling SSA as intrinsically disordered, that this disordered desire of human sexuality is what constitutes the manifest feature of the disorder, you seem to think that your diversionary contradistinction of “assume a choice that is not there”, will thereby “prove” your psycho-babble logic that SSA therefore defies categorization of psychopathology. Give me a break. I suggest that you go back to your Homosexual Apologestics 101 course and get the basic strategies down right before arguing for your camp, because you are coming across an non-sensical.
F
felra
Guest
You are the only one I see interjecting the term "“pathological uncontrollable urge …”. Who is guilty of failing to compare like with like? (hint: sexual desire–either ordered heterosexual or *disordered *homosexual).
Do you know what kleptomania is?
Did you read LovedOne compare kleptomania to homosexuality?
If the answer to these questions is ‘yes’ then you did read the mixing up, you simply didnt recognise the context shift.
See my posts # 110 and 112 and your own link citations to better inform yourself of the diagnosis, course and treatment of kleptomania, and common denominator between both of these clinical phenomenon.
[/quote]
F
felra
Guest
Firstly, you’ll find that mental illnesses do exist, that do impare judgement, that they do require treatment and no matter how much you shout and scream and curdle in denial there are these thing called ‘psychiatrists’ and these other things called ‘hospitals’ where they are treated.2perfection said:
Yes, for the more severe and acute symptoms of a mental illness. It is good to remember, not all mental illnesses are the same in severity, social perception, or social adaptability (i.e., can cover up, can functionally compensate for).
Uhmmm, …an interesting tell tale omission, you forgot to mention (or if you actually did not know, then you need to do a more detailed reading): Not all sexual disorders=compulsions. There are sexual disorders that have as their primary feature dysfunction or ego-dysphoria. No one here is necessarily stating that SSA is a “sexually based compulsive disorder”. Nice try–NOT.
Somehow we are supposed to follow you “logic” to the reasonable conclusion that criminals in jail proves that SSA is not a symptom of an underlying psychological disorder. Give me a break. Your conjecture is getting sillier by the sentence.
Better stated, “I’ll stop there. I think I’ve dug myself in deep enough of a hole as it is”.
You have maybe convinced one person here of your opinion (or rather “reinforced for that one person” is the more accurate way of putting it).
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
It does matter what we think. People are often confused about teachings/decisions/positions of the Pope.
There are infallible teachings (ex cathedra) that are essential matters of faith for all Catholics that we must believe. Belief in the Trinity is one such teaching.
However, there are other matters that we are called to prayerfully consider a Pope’s moral teaching but we are allowed to reach a contrary opinion so long as we have done so prayerfully, with a well-formed conscience (as defined by the Church) and exercised our own God-given prudence. Pope John Paul’s teaching on teh death penalty is such a teaching. But the key here is we are called to pray about it. Additionally, if we disagree with the Pope we need to express our disagreement (if we even have to express it) in a way that is respectful of the Pope and the disagreement doesn’t cause scandal in the Church (as in a Catholic Governor saying the Pope is nuts and killing these murdering rapists is justice. P.S. I know no Governor who has said this. Just an illustration)
Then there is the matter of the Iraq war, the Pope’s expressin of opposition was mostly him exercising his opinion as a major world moral leader. Catholics are free to accept this teaching or reject it with no bearing on their Catholic standing.
Frankly, the decision to ban gay seminarians is probably in fact closest to the middle example. We are free to disagree with this decision (since he gets to decide this exclusively by virtual fiat, there is a question of why we are really expressing ourselves in a situation that we have no real say and maybe this is the point that migurl is making) or agree. However, because it has implications that are theological and potentially regarding the culpability of holding homosexuals responsible for their acts, I think we can expect follow-up teachings.
The irony of this is that the if the decision is that homosexuals can’t be priests because this is disorder, the theological ramifications is that homosexuality is no longer a sin because homosexualities don’t have “control” to give the assent necessary for it to be a sin.
I for one don’t want to go there. I think it a sinfual act and that with prayer and God’s grace, it can be overcome.
M
MikeinSD
Guest
By correctly labelling SSA as intrinsically disordered, that this disordered desire of human sexuality is what constitutes the manifest feature of the disorder, you seem to think that your diversionary contradistinction of “assume a choice that is not there”, will thereby “prove” your psycho-babble logic that SSA therefore defies categorization of psychopathology. Give me a break. I suggest that you go back to your Homosexual Apologestics 101 course and get the basic strategies down right before arguing for your camp, because you are coming across an non-sensical.
There is no such thing as SSA. It is not in the psychiatric literature of the American Psychiatric Assn. or the American Psychological Assn. Discussing “SSA” as a mental illness is like a biologist describing the anatomy of a unicorn. “SSA” is fiction. It does not exist.
apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html
If you are quoting Paul Cameron:
psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_sheet.html
you are sourcing your data on a man who has been expelled from his national professional association as well as his state profession association for ethical violations and falsifying data. Quoting from Cameron about gay men and lesbians is equal to quoting a declared Catholic heretic about Catholic teachings. In either case, the reliability of source of the data has to be questioned. And found wanting.
Whether gay men should be priests is up the Catholic church. If homosexuality is mental illness/disorder/whatever has been investigated by mental health professionals for over 35 years. And the consensus of mental health professions is homosexuality is a part of the spectrum of human sexuality.
clgs.org/5/5_6_5.html
“SSA” is a myth.
Mike
There is no such thing as SSA. It is not in the psychiatric literature of the American Psychiatric Assn. or the American Psychological Assn. Discussing “SSA” as a mental illness is like a biologist describing the anatomy of a unicorn. “SSA” is fiction. It does not exist.
apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html
If you are quoting Paul Cameron:
psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_sheet.html
you are sourcing your data on a man who has been expelled from his national professional association as well as his state profession association for ethical violations and falsifying data. Quoting from Cameron about gay men and lesbians is equal to quoting a declared Catholic heretic about Catholic teachings. In either case, the reliability of source of the data has to be questioned. And found wanting.
Whether gay men should be priests is up the Catholic church. If homosexuality is mental illness/disorder/whatever has been investigated by mental health professionals for over 35 years. And the consensus of mental health professions is homosexuality is a part of the spectrum of human sexuality.
clgs.org/5/5_6_5.html
“SSA” is a myth.
Mike
G
Gabriel_Gale
Guest
So do you believe that no men with Same Sex Attraction exist or simply that SSA is not a mental disorder?
For the record, it is evident that people have same sex attraction. I dont’t think that constitutes a mental disder. However, I don’t believe that any vices (pedophilia, alcoholism, homosexuality, pornography, racism, serial rape, etc ) is a mental disorder.
Interestingly, in the DSM, the list of sexual behaviors that aren’t mental disorders include beastiality, necrophilia, sado-masochism, serial rape.
Many psychologist and psychiatrist don’t belong to their biggest professional organizations (the APA’s) because of their leftist politics.
As Robert Spitzer and other note, no new scientific evidence was presented to show that homosexuality was or was not a mental disorder in 1973. As many have noted, the 1973 vote was strictly political. Of course this has caused problems for the APA since other deviants have requested the removal of their disorder from the DSM. The APA has been somewhat accomodating. With the new DSM IV, most ego-syntonic paraphilias were removed from the DSM. This meant that the pedophile who took sex trips to Thailand and never felt regret was no longer consdiered disordered. By the way, this was similar to the recategorization of ego-syntonic homosexuality out of the DSM. Dr. Lauara publicized this change in 1997. The APA quickly changed its position and published a revised text that included the Thai sex trippers.
Along with S&M, zoophilia, necrophilia, transvestism etc as represented in the consensus document DSM.
Or is it simply a description?
G
Gabriel_Gale
Guest
So what’s a mental disorder?
The scientific consensus is represented by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR), the bible of mental health treatment. Pedophilia is listed among other psychiatric disorders called paraphilias. The consensus is fragile and malleable. In the 1994 edition of the DSM-IV (the new revised edition is the DSM-IV-TR published in 2000), the diagnosis of pedophilia was restricted to only those who were either distressed by the pedophilic thoughts or fantasies or impaired in social and occupational functioning (criteria B). Simply, pedophilia became a disorder only if the pedophile felt guilty or was caught. In the latest edition, DSM-IV-TR, Criteria B was eliminated. So engaging in pedophilic acts and/or distressing sexual fantasies or urges about prepubescent children fulfilled the criteria for diagnosis. Interestingly, the publishers (American Psychiatric Association) issue a cautionary statement about the DSM which specifically states,” It is to be understood that inclusion here, for clinical and research purposes, of a diagnostic category such as pathological gambling or Pedophilia does not imply that the condition meets legal or other nonmedical criteria for what constitutes mental disease, mental disorder or mental disability.”
DSM XXVII
The scientific consensus is represented by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR), the bible of mental health treatment. Pedophilia is listed among other psychiatric disorders called paraphilias. The consensus is fragile and malleable. In the 1994 edition of the DSM-IV (the new revised edition is the DSM-IV-TR published in 2000), the diagnosis of pedophilia was restricted to only those who were either distressed by the pedophilic thoughts or fantasies or impaired in social and occupational functioning (criteria B). Simply, pedophilia became a disorder only if the pedophile felt guilty or was caught. In the latest edition, DSM-IV-TR, Criteria B was eliminated. So engaging in pedophilic acts and/or distressing sexual fantasies or urges about prepubescent children fulfilled the criteria for diagnosis. Interestingly, the publishers (American Psychiatric Association) issue a cautionary statement about the DSM which specifically states,” It is to be understood that inclusion here, for clinical and research purposes, of a diagnostic category such as pathological gambling or Pedophilia does not imply that the condition meets legal or other nonmedical criteria for what constitutes mental disease, mental disorder or mental disability.”
DSM XXVII
T
tuopaolo
Guest
The Church’s authority to teach the truth about the human person, including whether or not something is a disorder of that person’s mind, an objective defect of that person’s personality, is greater than any authority that a group of scientists may have.
F
felra
Guest
- Status