Raymond Lloyd Richmond, Phd

[Dottiepo]

Has anyone heard of Raymond Lloyd Richmond, Phd? I came across his website chastitysf.guidetopsychology.com in searching for some guidance for weight loss.

I was wondering if his website would be helpful or harmful!

Thanks in advance.

 

[francisca]

I ve just scanned his website, and I read that he include religion aspect in his thinking.

What I can say is : a psychologist who is a christian believer is relatively better than an atheist or christian-but-unbeliever psychologist. This is because, in my opinion as a believer, no matter how good and advance methodology and human knowledge, when it has something to do with a person mental and inner self mechanisms, others are always outsiders who may or may not able to understand it. Only God can understand a person completely, therefore the solution must first of all comes from Him. Thus psychological problem usually must go to-- first of all-- what the person believe. A pure psychological approach may only bring good analysis but not necessarily good solution, and even potentially make the situation worse when the analysis “inject” new combinations of condemnations to the person’s way of thinking.

This I conclude as a person who is a believer and a conscious person of self-responsiblity for her own/ family health and well being, who will never surrender to anyone regarding this responsibility, who insist on checking and rechecking doctors opinions to be inline with what she believe.

I am no professional neither knowledgeable, just a believer and a conscious person.

Whether his website is helpful, I think all information is useful. But information can be harmful if we take wrong message from it and just swallow it without ever checking it. So in short, if you are trying to study psychology then it’s good to read his website, it seems informative. But if you need a psycholog, then you can hear what he say to you, but then you also check and recheck whether his analysis really help your situation or makes it worse. And talk to Jesus about your problems !

God bless you.

 

[ThisOne]

Has anyone heard of Raymond Lloyd Richmond, Phd? I came across his website chastitysf.guidetopsychology.com in searching for some guidance for weight loss.

I was wondering if his website would be helpful or harmful!

Thanks in advance.

He’s rock-solid Roman Catholic:
guidetopsychology.com/catholic.htm

There’s so much on his site, and it’s not easy to find, but he’s quite good, in my opinion. I have read most of the site over the last year’s time.

Here’s another good page: guidetopsychology.com/reltx.htm

Here’s the Index by Subject: guidetopsychology.com/topics.htm

 

[Answering_Posts]

Only God can understand a person completely, therefore the solution must first of all comes from Him. Thus psychological problem usually must go to-- first of all-- what the person believe. A pure psychological approach may only bring good analysis but not necessarily good solution, and even potentially make the situation worse when the analysis “inject” new combinations of condemnations to the person’s way of thinking.

I think all information is useful. But information can be harmful if we take wrong message from it and just swallow it without ever checking it.
God bless you.

I have to say that completely agree with everything you said there. :thumbsup:And I am an atheist! I agree with what you said about psychology and psychologists.
I do, of course, disagree with the ‘atheists don’t make good psychologists’, if I’m successful in making my point, you’ll understand why.

QUOTE: no matter how good and advance methodology and human knowledge, when it has something to do with a person mental and inner self mechanisms, others are always outsiders who may or may not able to understand it. END QUOTE

completely agree with you 100%~!

QUOTE: Only God can understand a person completely, therefore the solution must first of all comes from Him END QUOTE]

I agree, in essence, with what you are saying. However, I would express the idea differently. A individual is the only person who can ‘know’ what ideas are right for them, and what ideas are wrong for them. I call that self knowledge.

Anyway, just wanted to share that usually I don’t agree with religious folk, but after reading your posts, I realized that you and I, although we believe very different things, we have assessed some things and came to the same conclusion. I don’t know if the moderators will quickly delete this post, as it is not from a christian member. (or if it will ever by posted at all, I’m not sure) Nonetheless, that’s for them to decide. I just wanted to extend a thanks to you, for making me realize that although we believe very different things, how similar we really are. Cheers!

 

[LilyM]

He’s rock-solid Roman Catholic:
guidetopsychology.com/catholic.htm

There’s so much on his site, and it’s not easy to find, but he’s quite good, in my opinion. I have read most of the site over the last year’s time.

Here’s another good page: guidetopsychology.com/reltx.htm

Here’s the Index by Subject: guidetopsychology.com/topics.htm

I came across his site while looking for Catholic alternatives to the ‘mindfulness’ stuff my non-religious psychologist was recommending to me.

The audio meditations are totally unproblematic. Used them a few times, but I’m regrettably slack about keeping up with such things.

 

[Mike_Humpherys]

I came across this thread when I was research Dr. Richmond. While he has some good stuff, I would hesitate to call him a “rock-solid” Catholic. Here is a link to a review of his site that cites some of the troubles.
He’s certainly got some really good stuff and directs you to the mystics, but he turns away from Church teaching as he sees fit. He justifies this by saying that the Catechism is only a necessary minimum and he is seeking perfection.
He also gives some biblical commentary which is at times quite strange, such as that women who do not pray with a veil will be possessed by demons. While he notes that he has received a masters in religious studies, it is unclear where he received it or what kind of theological foundations he has and thus whether accurately understands the Catholic mystical tradition.
I personally contacted him, because I didn’t understand what he meant by “eroticism,” because he didn’t seem to distinguish between the unitive purpose of marriage and a disordered desire to use and possess. He responded to me with accusation, which he has done with others as the Catholic Culture link shows.
In sum, he has good stuff but seems proud and arrogant. He ignores or rejects Church teaching that does not conform to his personal understanding of Catholic mysticism and holy living. Often he seems to get half the truth, but he is unwilling to make necessary distinctions (or perhaps more charitably does not see the distinctions) between for example competitive sports that encourage a community of fraternity and virtue and neurotic tendencies to control others. However, there is a lot of great good on his site, but this also makes him dangerous, because it is difficult to sort out the good from the bad. At first blush, he appears to be a serious Catholic preaching the Gospel no one is willing to hear. But he gets into problems when he turns away from Church teaching.
As he notes in his “imprimatur” section, if he is a saint, then his cause will go up and his works evaluated by the Church and then we can be more sure about the worth of it. However, as for now, there are more certain sources of orthodox spirituality.
More than anything be cautious and return always to the Magisterium.

 

[davidjb17]

I have to say that completely agree with everything you said there. :thumbsup:And I am an atheist! I agree with what you said about psychology and psychologists.
I do, of course, disagree with the ‘atheists don’t make good psychologists’, if I’m successful in making my point, you’ll understand why.

QUOTE: no matter how good and advance methodology and human knowledge, when it has something to do with a person mental and inner self mechanisms, others are always outsiders who may or may not able to understand it. END QUOTE

completely agree with you 100%~!

QUOTE: Only God can understand a person completely, therefore the solution must first of all comes from Him END QUOTE]

I agree, in essence, with what you are saying. However, I would express the idea differently. A individual is the only person who can ‘know’ what ideas are right for them, and what ideas are wrong for them. I call that self knowledge.

Anyway, just wanted to share that usually I don’t agree with religious folk, but after reading your posts, I realized that you and I, although we believe very different things, we have assessed some things and came to the same conclusion. I don’t know if the moderators will quickly delete this post, as it is not from a christian member. (or if it will ever by posted at all, I’m not sure) Nonetheless, that’s for them to decide. I just wanted to extend a thanks to you, for making me realize that although we believe very different things, how similar we really are. Cheers!

I LOVE this kind of attitude. Keep it up man, this is what we need more of! Obviously I wish you were Catholic, because I think it’s how we were engingeered to live and we hold very joyous teachings to be true, but nevertheless have no problem acknowledging you as someone to learn a thing or two from

 

[Devoted_to_Jude]

I came across this thread when I was research Dr. Richmond. While he has some good stuff, I would hesitate to call him a “rock-solid” Catholic. Here is a link to a review of his site that cites some of the troubles.
He’s certainly got some really good stuff and directs you to the mystics, but he turns away from Church teaching as he sees fit. He justifies this by saying that the Catechism is only a necessary minimum and he is seeking perfection.
He also gives some biblical commentary which is at times quite strange, such as that women who do not pray with a veil will be possessed by demons. While he notes that he has received a masters in religious studies, it is unclear where he received it or what kind of theological foundations he has and thus whether accurately understands the Catholic mystical tradition.
I personally contacted him, because I didn’t understand what he meant by “eroticism,” because he didn’t seem to distinguish between the unitive purpose of marriage and a disordered desire to use and possess. He responded to me with accusation, which he has done with others as the Catholic Culture link shows.
In sum, he has good stuff but seems proud and arrogant. He ignores or rejects Church teaching that does not conform to his personal understanding of Catholic mysticism and holy living. Often he seems to get half the truth, but he is unwilling to make necessary distinctions (or perhaps more charitably does not see the distinctions) between for example competitive sports that encourage a community of fraternity and virtue and neurotic tendencies to control others. However, there is a lot of great good on his site, but this also makes him dangerous, because it is difficult to sort out the good from the bad. At first blush, he appears to be a serious Catholic preaching the Gospel no one is willing to hear. But he gets into problems when he turns away from Church teaching.
As he notes in his “imprimatur” section, if he is a saint, then his cause will go up and his works evaluated by the Church and then we can be more sure about the worth of it. However, as for now, there are more certain sources of orthodox spirituality.
More than anything be cautious and return always to the Magisterium.

Now I know this is old post, but I am not really getting where you say he turns away from Church teaching “as sees fit”. I an unaware of any examples of him doing this. I went to the website you referenced, but it seems that their complaints are rather subjective and in my opinion are based on an uncharitable reading. In other words, they will give an example and when they explain their reasoning I believe it is based on a misunderstanding of what was actually being said, or they otherwise assumed an implication that I myself don’t believe was actually being implied.

To be clear you are saying there is bad stuff on his website as if were an established fact, but unless you can actually providing evidence to demonstrate this then I think it is enormously irresponsible and inappropriate thing to say.

 

[LightBound]

Now I know this is old post, but I am not really getting where you say he turns away from Church teaching “as sees fit”. I an unaware of any examples of him doing this. I went to the website you referenced, but it seems that their complaints are rather subjective and in my opinion are based on an uncharitable reading. In other words, they will give an example and when they explain their reasoning I believe it is based on a misunderstanding of what was actually being said, or they otherwise assumed an implication that I myself don’t believe was actually being implied.

To be clear you are saying there is bad stuff on his website as if were an established fact, but unless you can actually providing evidence to demonstrate this then I think it is enormously irresponsible and inappropriate thing to say.

Overall rating: catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=2698&repos=2&subrepos=0&searchid=1706645

Examples of concern:
catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/view.cfm?Example=5728&recnum=2698&task=showexample

catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/view.cfm?Example=5729&recnum=2698&task=showexample

catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/view.cfm?Example=5730&recnum=2698&task=showexample

catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/view.cfm?Example=5731&recnum=2698&task=showexample