Pope approves barring gay seminarians

[LovedOne]

2perfection:

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.

You are pretending to reply to the quote by me you selected.

I stated that no sexual desire (whatever motivates that desire) is “uncontrollable.” Which is a fact.
You then went on to argue how compulsions impair “free will” and that compulsions are mental illnesses.
Compulsions may be a symptom of an underlying psychological disorder - but that does NOT mean that one cannot control a sinful urge! If that were true - it would not be a sin.
There is not a single sexual sin that one would have NO control over committing.
Because resisting an urge is difficult - does not mean one then has a license to give in to that urge.
And the topic here was sexual desires/urges - not a general urge or compulsion.

And the condition of homosexuality IS a mental illness. A psychological disorder. No matter how much you protest that truth is not going to change. It is simply a fact. Confirmed by Christ’s church that He established and left the care of the deposit of faith. Unless you support your arguements from THAT foundation - your arguements ring hallow and are left wanting.

 

[fix]

felra:

You (and others) may want to give today’s Catholic Answer’s Live show a listen to better understand the authority of the Pope:

Along these lines:

ECCLESIASTICAL GOVERNANCE
Simply put, the bond of ecclesiastical governance requires a Catholic willingly to accept the structure of the Church, embrace her disciplines with humility, and accept the decisions of those in authority. Canons 752, 753, and 754 identify different types of teachings and disciplines given by the Magisterium in various expressions of authority. While different levels of obedience are required for the different types of authority expressed, there is one common theme to all of them. That is, OBEDIENCE itself. No matter whether a theologian or teacher of the faith believes a discipline should be changed or not, they are bound to obey or they do not enjoy the full bond of unity expressed by ecclesiastical governance.
st-joseph-foundation.org/newsletter/2001/cfd19-3.htm

 

[Topher]

St.Curious:

Acting on tendancies is of course sinful for a celibate priest.

Being tempted and not acting is not sinful.

Homosexuality is a mortal sin as decided by the Church.

Living a life of homosexuality (active or not) is sinful.

Acting on homosexual tendancies is of course sinful for a celibate priest.

Being tempted by homosexual tendancies and not acting is not physically sinful, but it is mentally sinful, mortal even.

Prayer prayer prayer.

Heresy! Heresy! (I really need to learn how to spell that). Anyway Temptation is NEVER sinful. Only when one assents to temptation and acts on them, either mentally or physically, then it becomes a sin. To say otherwise is heresy. That being said, some one who sturggles with the disorder of homosexuality is not the same as a person who stuggles with heterosexual temptations. The two are not equal. Heterosexuality is intrinsic to every person and is good. Whereas homosexuality is an unnatrual disorder. Thus, struggling with same sex attracations may mean that a person is not healty enough, mentally, to serve as a priest.

 

[2perfection]

LovedOne:

You are pretending to reply to the quote by me you selected.

No, I was short of time so dealt with one flaw in your logic amongst many. I have responded to a lot of stuff, and am currently trying not to exceed the 5000 char limit on responses.

No ‘pretending’ involved, please try to be a little more charitable in your interpretations, just as I try to be charitable when dealing with what appear to be gross misrepresentations of fact, logic, and argument.

Now, I will return to your post, but currently, I am enjoying a beer.

 

[Topher]

2perfection:

No, I was short of time so dealt with one flaw in your logic amongst many. I have responded to a lot of stuff, and am currently trying not to exceed the 5000 char limit on responses.

No ‘pretending’ involved, please try to be a little more charitable in your interpretations, just as I try to be charitable when dealing with what appear to be gross misrepresentations of fact, logic, and argument.

Now, I will return to your post, but currently, I am enjoying a beer.

It is actually very simple. Anyone can see that sex is made for babies and bonding. That is the norm. To step out side of the natural ORDER, is to be disordered. Therefore, homosexuality is disordered. Look, if i had an affinity for eating bricks, but I could still say no to eating bricks, would you not admitt that I would have a psychological disorder? If the natural order is for a person to engage in sexual relations with some one of the opposite sex, and they are attracted to people of the same sex, then this is a disorder.

 

[felra]

fix:

Along these lines:

ECCLESIASTICAL GOVERNANCE

Simply put, the bond of ecclesiastical governance requires a Catholic willingly to accept the structure of the Church, embrace her disciplines with humility, and accept the decisions of those in authority. Canons 752, 753, and 754 identify different types of teachings and disciplines given by the Magisterium in various expressions of authority. While different levels of obedience are required for the different types of authority expressed, there is one common theme to all of them. That is, OBEDIENCE itself. No matter whether a theologian or teacher of the faith believes a discipline should be changed or not, they are bound to obey or they do not enjoy the full bond of unity expressed by ecclesiastical governance.
st-joseph-foundation.org…001/cfd19-3.htm

I would also add: It would be especially incumbent upon for any person who is involved in their parish’s ecumenical and RCIA activities to be well informed and very clear on the extent of papal authority for different types of teachings and disciplines.

“Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. …The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.” (CCC 1783)

 

[felra]

2perfection:

No, I was short of time so dealt with one flaw in your logic amongst many. I have responded to a lot of stuff, and am currently trying not to exceed the 5000 char limit on responses.

No ‘pretending’ involved, please try to be a little more charitable in your interpretations, just as I try to be charitable when dealing with what appear to be gross misrepresentations of fact, logic, and argument.

Now, I will return to your post, but currently, I am enjoying a beer.

Depending on your time zone, at best you are still 2 minutes shy of afternoon.

Of course, unless your rebuttal is that you live in a different hemi-sphere.

Addendum: By all means please let us know when you have exceeded your limit in subsequent post replies so as we may extend an even greater share of charity.

 

[Orionthehunter]

felra:

I would also add: It would be especially incumbent upon for any person who is involved in their parish’s ecumenical and RCIA activities to be well informed and very clear on the extent of papal authority for different types of teachings and disciplines.

“Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. …The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.” (CCC 1783)

As Felra knows of my lay involvement in my parish, this “slap” is intended for me. If Felra has some specific indication of my unfitness for these roles, please copy to me in an email/private message the egregious positions that cause him concern and I will faithfully submit them to my Bishop, Director of Adult Education and Faith Formation, and Director of Education to determine where I am not in conformance with Church Teaching. I have no intention of ever advocating false teaching or causing scandal. Otherwise, please refrain from such gratuitous attempts to thwart legitimate debate, conversation, and raising of issues.

And from the same source as quoted by fix: This understanding of ecclesiastical governance is most aptly summarized in canon 212:

§1: Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the church. (bolded by me and the examples I sited, the Pope didn’t claim that he was representing Christ in his God-given legitimate authority to do so in certain instances)

§3: According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

Felra, your very apparent assault on my orthodoxy is noted. All I wanted to note is that there are different degrees with which obedience and assent to Papal pronouncements is required and that in some cases for the well-formed Catholic conscience to reach different policy conclusions and still remain in communion.

Personally, I take all pronouncements of the Pope very seriously whether they are ex cathedra or within his scope and role as a world moral and political leader. And in cases where his pronouncement conflicts with my position, I take it to prayer in concert to intellectual rigor so I can gain the wisdom and understanding to reconcile myself to him. In this process, I end up with a greater and broader understanding of my calling to live and preach the Good News of Jesus Christ.

I admit that I have not yet reconciled Pope John Paul’s messages on US intervention in Kosovo/Serbia and Iraq as my position currently is prudently reached by a dedication that to not intervene was contrary to our Christian obligation to ACT to protect the dignity of all people, especially the most victimized. In no way do I assert that Pope Paul II’s position is less consistent with the Gospel but only that prudence and our own conscience can cause good Catholics to reach different conclusions on the same temporal issues.

What I react to and the genesis of my earlier post is an opposition to an attitude that equates BLIND obedience and obedience thereby dismissing the legitimate and Church-encouraged process of exploring, investigating, and discerning. Such an attitude insults and degrades the dignity of each individual made good in the image of God.

 

[felra]

Orionthehunter:

As Felra knows of my lay involvement in my parish, this “slap” is intended for me. If Felra has some specific indication of my unfitness for these roles, please copy to me in an email/private message the egregious positions that cause him concern and I will faithfully submit them to my Bishop, Director of Adult Education and Faith Formation, and Director of Education to determine where I am not in conformance with Church Teaching. I have no intention of ever advocating false teaching or causing scandal. Otherwise, please refrain from such gratuitous attempts to thwart legitimate debate, conversation, and raising of issues.

Felra, your very apparent assault on my orthodoxy is noted. All I wanted to note is that there are different degrees with which obedience and assent to Papal pronouncements is required and that in some cases for the well-formed Catholic conscience to reach different policy conclusions and still remain in communion.

Personally, I take all pronouncements of the Pope very seriously whether they are ex cathedra or within his scope and role as a world moral and political leader. And in cases where his pronouncement conflicts with my position, I take it to prayer in concert to intellectual rigor so I can gain the wisdom and understanding to reconcile myself to him. In this process, I end up with a greater and broader understanding of my calling to live and preach the Good News of Jesus Christ.

I admit that I have not yet reconciled Pope John Paul’s messages on US intervention in Kosovo/Serbia and Iraq as my position currently is prudently reached by a dedication that to not intervene was contrary to our Christian obligation to ACT to protect the dignity of all people, especially the most victimized. In no way do I assert that Pope Paul II’s position is less consistent with the Gospel but only that prudence and our own conscience can cause good Catholics to reach different conclusions on the same temporal issues.

What I react to and the genesis of my earlier post is an opposition to an attitude that equates BLIND obedience and obedience thereby dismissing the legitimate and Church-encouraged process of exploring, investigating, and discerning. Such an attitude insults and degrades the dignity of each individual made good in the image of God.

Most unfortunate that this poster takes this friendly, non-identifying reminder as a “slap”. Why the defensive response? I would certainly appreciate a reinforcement as such if I made known my position of parish responsibility, and having presented in a public format, subjective criteria unchecked by clear reference to a proper and clear understanding of papal authority, in which one is allowed to reject decisions of those in various expressions of Magesterium authority (under the umbrella of “process of exploring, investigating, and discerning”).

The opinion that you expressed (see quote below) can give the appearance/impression of questioning proper ecclesial authority, where by one could misconstrue subjective lay opinion superseeding the faithful requirement of OBEDIENCE to ecclesiastical governance.

Originally posted by Orienthehunter
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.

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.

In the future I would hope that you do not confuse my “brotherly accord” with a “very apparent assault on my orthodoxy” and assume the worst in another. Also, you would do well to consider the audience who reads these posts (and others who allow your influence in their faith formation) so as not to inadvertedly misinform/mislead of the requirements of the faith.

 

[2perfection]

LovedOne:

You are pretending to reply to the quote by me you selected.

I stated that no sexual desire (whatever motivates that desire) is “uncontrollable.” Which is a fact.

Your wisdom is required here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=77241

 

[fix]

Orionthehunter:

And from the same source as quoted by fix: This understanding of ecclesiastical governance is most aptly summarized in canon 212:

§1: Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the church. (bolded by me and the examples I sited, the Pope didn’t claim that he was representing Christ in his God-given legitimate authority to do so in certain instances)

§3: According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

Are you claiming you have a right to be disobedient? None of the sections you quote says one has a right to reject the lawful directive.

 

[Orionthehunter]

fix:

Are you claiming you have a right to be disobedient? None of the sections you quote says one has a right to reject the lawful directive.

Sheesh, this is so tiring. Did I say I had a right to be disobedient?

Let me ask you some questions: The Pope said that he did not believe that US intervention in Iraq was the correct decision. If I disagree with him, am I being disobedient?

When the Church chastised and I believe excommunicated Galileo for asserting that the Earth was round and that the Earth revolved around the Sun and not vice versa, was he being disobedient?

And let’s not even open the issue of St. Joan of Arc.

On matters that the Pope is speaking within his official teaching authority, we are called to accept them as inspired by the Holy Spirit and Truth. But on other matters, we are free to respectfully reach other conclusions. Read my posts and the examples I used.

For instance, the Pope was very clear on his views on the Death Penalty. I agree with him wholeheartedly. However, despite these views, the Church (while inviting various political and especially our nation’s Catholic Governors to reconsider their public positions) has been very clear that these Governor’s are not required to change their positions to remain as Catholics in good standing. Are they being disobedient?

 

[2perfection]

felra:

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!

It seems that for someone who criticises my reading skills you managed to miss the point about it getting treated. Yes, that is outside (name removed by moderator)ut from psychiatrists and the use of anti-depressant drugs.

The Kleptomaniacs are not ‘resisting’ they are having outside help.

Hmmmm…double Hmmmmmm.

I find it extremely odd that you didnt spot the fact that the compulsion needed treatment and the most successful treatment needed drugs. It looks to all intense and purposes that claims that people are not really suffer from a compulsive disorder are false.

felra:

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."

So, the symptom is cured (stealing) but the underlying disorder (complusion) remains Not really a cure then is it? But at least the symptom goes away.

Now, to an interesting point. The doc changes the compulsion from stealing to cleaning. The person is still ill…but at least not ‘sinning’ or comitting crimes.

I suppose that is a partial success.

What a pity homosexuality and heteroseuxality do not follow that pattern! What a pity that torture, drugs, prison, psychiatry can treat the heterosexual or homosexual compulsion to fancy who they fancy.

**Once again, your argument disproves your own, and LovedOnes point. **

felra:

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.

I note, with growing amazement a rather perverse comparison here.

Straight lads going out on the pull, also shave, showever, put on cool clothes and go to where they will be lucky. To a normal thinking mind the actions of gay lads getting ready and straight lads getting ready would be equivilent.

Looking good, getting excited, listening to music, phoning eachother up to make sure they are in the right place at the right time. A good saturday night. The only difference being some want to pick up men, some women.

In the strange world of some posters here, those two groups, who are very similar, have similar goals and motivations, are not alike at all.

One is perfectly normal, if sinning…

The other are like kleptomanics indulging in rituals before carryiong out their sinful cumpulsions.

Alice…we’re down that rabit hole again!

felra:

Likewise, both conditions can be abated, put into remission, and over time, become less taxing to manage or modify the actual source of disorder.

Except homosexuality cant, except in the smallest of minorities, the religious conservative witha lot of internalised homophobia.

This posting of yours did you no credit.

 

[2perfection]

Topher:

It is actually very simple. Anyone can see that sex is made for babies and bonding. That is the norm. To step out side of the natural ORDER, is to be disordered. Therefore, homosexuality is disordered. Look, if i had an affinity for eating bricks, but I could still say no to eating bricks, would you not admitt that I would have a psychological disorder? If the natural order is for a person to engage in sexual relations with some one of the opposite sex, and they are attracted to people of the same sex, then this is a disorder.

Thanks for your post, but there is a world of people out there having sex for reasons other than making babies, and other than bonding.

The current understanding is that it is natural and expected that a small % of people will have exclusive interest in their own sex, and that a much larger group will have situational homosex.

You post was refreshingly honest.

As a matter of interest, it used ot be believed that peasants should remain peasants and kings should be kings and that was the natural order and it should never change.

Oh for the good old days, eh?

 

[2perfection]

felra:

Depending on your time zone, at best you are still 2 minutes shy of afternoon.

Exactly what part of GMT+2 did you not understand.

Didnt check my profile did you? Just thought your assumptions were good enough. Didnt needs facts, did you. You had yo get that attempt at a cheap shot in.

Given the above (yes dear, I live in another hemisphere) what credence should your posts be given in future?

I await your apology.

 

[Gabriel_Gale]

__________________

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.

Mike

Of course this could be applied to many diagnosis in the DSM such as pedophilia, exhibitionism, kleptomania, patholigcal gambling. Like the unicorn, the biologist won’t find any anatomy here either.

 

[fix]

Orionthehunter:

Sheesh, this is so tiring. Did I say I had a right to be disobedient?

Let me ask you some questions: The Pope said that he did not believe that US intervention in Iraq was the correct decision. If I disagree with him, am I being disobedient?

When the Church chastised and I believe excommunicated Galileo for asserting that the Earth was round and that the Earth revolved around the Sun and not vice versa, was he being disobedient?

And let’s not even open the issue of St. Joan of Arc.

On matters that the Pope is speaking within his official teaching authority, we are called to accept them as inspired by the Holy Spirit and Truth. But on other matters, we are free to respectfully reach other conclusions. Read my posts and the examples I used.

For instance, the Pope was very clear on his views on the Death Penalty. I agree with him wholeheartedly. However, despite these views, the Church (while inviting various political and especially our nation’s Catholic Governors to reconsider their public positions) has been very clear that these Governor’s are not required to change their positions to remain as Catholics in good standing. Are they being disobedient?

The Pope, in regard to the anticipated document, has not expressed his private judgment on a concrete matter. He is addressing an issue that affects the Church and has ruled on it as is his authority. The current war is a case where apparently,although I have seen no proof, he has offered his opinion which is not a directive and not binding on the faithful.

The upcoming document is not his opinion and his intention is to be obeyed. He has the authority to issue these directives and they are not free to be rejected. While one may disagree with it, one is still bound to obey it. Now, we are not in positions to act on it as bishops and priests are, but I cannot see how we have the authority to publicly reject it?

The issues of Galileo, the death penalty and J of A are not analogous and usually misunderstood. If you want to discuss those on another thread I would be happy to.

 

[contemplative]

Quote:
Originally Posted by contemplative
I want to reintroduce an idea than many of you may already be familiar with.

Simple Obedience

Simple obedience is to simply obey the Church even when you don’t fully understand why you are suppose to or not suppose to do something…even when you don’t have the foggiest idea why you should do something.

Years ago I chose to disobey the Church when I didn’t fully understand Her. I knew that I should have simply obeyed the Church but my selfishness and pride would never hear of it. Today I realize my sin. God has His own way of getting to us…in His time…not ours.

Think of all the Holy men who have been denied priesthood and have settled on being a brother or once they were a priest they were not allowed to hear confessions or be the celebrant for Mass. These Holy men simply obeyed when perhaps they didn’t fully understand.

There is a reason for everything. God’s ways are not our ways. If we believe in one Catholic Apostolic Church then we would never give this order from our Pope a second thought.

When the feelings of rebellion rear their wicked heads then ask God to touch all that isn’t Him in you. Ask God to send His saving Grace.

BlessedBrother Andre Bessette - simple porter of the College of Notre-Dame-du-Sacré-Coeur in Côte-des-Neige.

Originally posted by Contemplative
And more recently there was Fr. Solanus Casey O.F.M.
Solanus was designated to serve as a “simple” priest. This meant he was not permitted to preach doctrinal sermons nor hear confessions. Despite these restrictions, Fr. Solanus became the trusted confidante of many, providing reassuring words that were often accompanied by miraculous healings.

St. Padre Pio was a priest but there were times when he was not allowed to be celebrant for Mass.

The Holy Office in Rome became aware of Padre Pio’s stigmata and by Christmas of 1920 had its reasons to forbid him to hear confessions, baptize, or to celebrate Mass in public. He was not allowed outside of his monastery to visit the sick, to administer Extreme Unction to the dying, or to perform any pastoral duty. These restrictions remained in force for two years. Read more…

from
Padre Pio
A City on a Mountain
By Pascal P. Parente. S.T.D.,Ph.D.,J.C.B
page 50

In one of his spiritual exhortaions, Padre Pio had this to say about the virtue of obedience:
"Where there is no obedience, there is no virtue; where there is no virtue, there is no good; where there is no good, there is no love; where there is no love, there is no God; and where there is no God, there is no Paradise.

Guided by such wisdom, it was not difficult for him to be resigned to the Will of God as manifested in the command received from his ecclesiastical superiors. With obedience he had God and retained the living hope of never-ending bliss; what did he care if everything else was taken from him?

What did he care if everything else was taken from him?

originally posted by YinYangMom
Right.
Do you have a question about that sentence?

It’s basically saying he was not concerned with earthly rules/constraints. With his eyes set on the Lord nothing else mattered except to serve Him and he recognized the heirarchy of the Church as established by Christ to be the instrument of God so he obeyed without regret, without feeling deprived, or wronged in any way - how could he if he places no emphasis on accommodations and personal rights (I mean, a true servant of the Lord has no personal rights as there is no person really, only God’s handiwork).

 

[felra]

It seems that for someone who criticises my reading skills you managed to miss the point about it getting treated. Yes, that is outside (name removed by moderator)ut from psychiatrists and the use of anti-depressant drugs.

The Kleptomaniacs are not ‘resisting’ they are having outside help.

One, I never criticized your “reading skills”, for that would have been rude. I commented on your apparent lack of thoroughness per your “quick check” which failed to encompass the successful treatment of kleptomania. BTW, contrary to what you indicated, the DSM treatment section does not limit to “psychiatrists and the use of anti-depressant drugs”. It does state “behavioral strategies have been reported as successful…”. BTW, for most disorders, a combination of psychotherapy and chemotherapy is the most efficacious in the long term management of a chronic/recurrent disorder.

Hmmmm…double Hmmmmmm.

I find it extremely odd that you didnt spot the fact that the compulsion needed treatment and the most successful treatment needed drugs. It looks to all intense and purposes that claims that people are not really suffer from a compulsive disorder are false.

Your point is lost to me here. Who is making the claims that people are not really suffering from a compulsive disorder? As LovedOne has already pointed, you are attempting to diffuse and divert the argument that SSA is not a psychological disorder by solely linking and making “compulsive” the defining criteria/threshold for diagnosis as a mental disorder. This is either poor understanding or purposeful distortion in service of your failed position to defend SSA as a non-abnormal phenomenon.

Originally Posted by felra

*This disorder is rather easy **to treat/***b]. 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."

So, the symptom is cured (stealing) but the underlying disorder (complusion) remains Not really a cure then is it? But at least the symptom goes away.

Here you go again, sloppy use of terms which have a clinical meaning and significance, is service of supporting your failed, unsubstantiated position of removing SSA from criteria for disorder. “To treat” does not mean “is cured” as you incorrectly attempt to equate. To correctly/accurately state: symptoms are managed/decreased/alleviated, …to a non-impairing level. This has nothing to do with “cure”. There may be degree of resolve/”cure” of the underlying cause for pathology as the symptoms are abated/managed/”treated”.

Perhaps a simple comparison to illustrate: An alcoholic correctly states, “Hi, my name is _____, I am recovering alcoholic”. Note: The alcoholic did not use the word “recovered” (past tense). The symptoms are absent (no longer drinking), but the disease is still present but in remission.

Now, to an interesting point. The doc changes the compulsion from stealing to cleaning. The person is still ill…but at least not ‘sinning’ or comitting crimes.

I suppose that is a partial success.

What a pity homosexuality and heteroseuxality do not follow that pattern! What a pity that torture, drugs, prison, psychiatry can treat the heterosexual or homosexual compulsion to fancy who they fancy.

The afflicted person has targeted and replaced the destructive behavior with a non-destructive, socially acceptable behavior. Yes, I would call this success. Then maybe the next step would be to work on eliminating excessive cleaning which as a replacement behavior does not pose a threat to others or self.

It would be more accurate/realistic if you consider “treatment’ and “cure” in a continuum of change, recovery process—this most often is how God brings about healing from addictions, disorders, unhealthy behavior and thought patterns in our lives, is it not?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Oh, the sound and the fury!

This debate could go on forever, precisely because it is not a debate over policies; it is a debate over ideals. I just read a phenomenally enlightening Op-Ed piece by a reporter stationed at the Vatican.

The article is about Italian law, as it regards the issuing of such a Vatican document. The Church hierarchy is historically rooted in Italy, and so it is no surprise that their lawmaking is seasoned with Italian spices. An excerpt:

While Italians grumble about lawlessness, fundamentally they believe in subjectivity. Anyone who’s tried to negotiate the traffic in Italian cities will appreciate the point. No law, most Italians believe, can capture the infinite complexity of human situations, and it’s more important for the law to describe a vision of the ideal community than for it to be rigidly obeyed. Italians have tough laws, but their enforcement is enormously forgiving.

The British historian Christopher Dawson has described this as the “erotic” spirit of cultures shaped by Roman Catholicism. Catholic cultures are based on the passionate quest for spiritual perfection, Dawson writes, unlike the “bourgeois” culture of the United States, which, shaped by Protestantism and based on practical reason, gives priority to economic concerns. As one senior Vatican official put it to me some time ago, “Law describes the way things would work if men were angels.”

The full article is here: nytimes.com/2005/09/27/opinion/27allen.html

Peace,

: Prodigal :