'Sexuality, like priesthood, is a gift from God. Nobody would choose to be gay'

[wynnejj]

Correction.

The anecdotal information is sufficient empirical evidence to support the claim that -]nobody would/-] some people might choose to be gay.

 

[ringil]

The anecdotal information is sufficient empirical evidence to support the claim that nobody would choose to be gay. This is a theory whose outcome can be shown over and over again which is the stuff of science. If you’re contention is that this certainly does not prove that nobody is hard-wired to be gay from birth, you certainly are correct. However, I’m not aware of a consensus of scientific studies & opinion on the subject. Feel free to educate me beyond the anecdotal.

I must be a bit dull but I can’t tell if you are agreeing with me that efforts to charnge sexual orientation are improper according to the research or not.

The development of homosexuality like heterosexuality is certainly more complex than a matter of a simple biological explanation. All human behavior is some combination of the bio-psycho-social realms. Different aspects of behavior, whether integal to life, socially adaptive, anti-social, mental illness, sexuality etc. etc. are developed and maintained by some aspects more than others.

Manic Depression and Schizophrenia, for example, are believed to be highly biological in nature. Depression can manifest out of many different ways, some highly biological, and some more psychological. Personality disorders are more of a combination of biological, psychological, and social aspects. Criminality is a fairly psychologically and socially comprised behavoir.

Sexual orientation is believed to be highly biological in nature, but to a certain degree, like everything else, psychology and social factors come into play. There are genetic studies, MRI’s, and other studies pointing to a biological cause. Still, as with all aspects of the mind, we only have, or can hope to have, an incomplete understanding.

Lastly, and again, knowing the genesis, development, and nature of homosexuality has nothing to do with the moral and spiritual questions of homosexual behavoirs, which the Church, and myself FWIW, believe are sinful. My, or any professionals, belief that homosexual behavior is sinful, should not affect their practice, though many, like myself would refer a client out if their homosexuality is a major component of their treatment. For most gay folks who see a therapist, their lifestyle really doesn’t come up or seem of clinical importance to their issues in therapy.

 

[pepipop]

He would have to be defrocked if he were celebrating the sacraments. I don’t get the impression that he is doing that. I suppose that being defrocked would be similar to a declared excommunication. Isn’t it primarily to avoid scandal on behalf of the sacraments? Isn’t it always once a priest always a priest unless the vows were made invalidly?

On a TV show last night he said he still said mass for people. The interviewer asked was the mass valid? To which he answered something along the lines of ‘once a priest always a priest’ - but it was not a direct answer. He did say he could not say mass at a marriage, I believe, if the bishop did not allow him - it was all very confusing, but it was blatantly obvious he is NOT supposed to be saying mass.

 

[LisaA]

Lifesitenews is yellow journalism in the same ballpark as the Inquirer or WND. It’s laughable.

Hate to break this to you but as a matter of record, they have been correct on many stories the MSM wouldn’t touch…Jonathan Edwards comes to mind here. Maybe you’d like to provide a list of articles on Lifesitenews that have been proven false?

Did you read the piece or are you just trashing it out of hand? It was written by a registered nurse and quoted a number of studies including the one I think you referred to regarding the doctor who originally said homosexuality could be ‘reversed’ and then reversed that position. Given the original work had a limited population and was based on self reporting it was hardly well supported. I am not sure why it was given credibility in the first place.

It did not promote therapy to reverse homosexuality but that the health issues related to (male) homosexuality have been ignored although the statistics are quite shocking. As a nurse her point was that political correctness has been allowed to gloss over some really tragic statistics in sometimes fatal illnesses (other than AIDS) that are a result of male homosexual practices. She believes that such issues should be addressed. I think she is speakiing as a nurse who sees a lot of human suffering.

It’s amazing if someone doesn’t agree with you, then anything they say must be “yellow journalism.”

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

And I can show you articles in the New York Times that were also badly written and non factual. How about WaPo? How about CBS news? All have fallen down in the area of credibility.

The point is that the article was dismissed as “yellow journalism” without having read it and without having found particular issues with the factuality of the article being cited. I don’t know if Lifesitenews has a bad reputation or not. But I thought the article was helpful and was well supported. It just didn’t comport with ringal’s point of view so it was dismissed.

As I pointed out even some of the more sensational news media such as the National Enquirer are more often than not correct. They may overplay their hand with razzle dazzle headlines but they are not often successfully challenged. The Jon Edwards story being one of the most notable where Enquirer ran many many stories while the MSM protected this vile man. Each article should be considered on its own merits.

Lisa

 

[wynnejj]

I must be a bit dull but I can’t tell if you are agreeing with me that efforts to charnge sexual orientation are improper according to the research or not.

Let’s make a distinction between a person’s natural orientation and the orientation that they choose to practice. In my examples, obviously they all chose one way, then switched later on. So one can choose to practice the opposite of their natural inclination.

Can one acquire a taste for a different orientation? I say “yes”.

I remember reading a book called Psycho-Cybernetics, where one of the premises was that the mind is a goal-striving automatic feedback mechanism. That is, subconsciously when there is a positive experience - a success - in attempting to achieve a goal, without conscious effort, the mind tries to assimilate / internalize all the elements for that success. It also bolsters their belief systems with every success which strengthens the retention of the elements of success with every successful encounter to refine it to the most successful recipe. It gave the example of a baby trying to grab an object. If successful, the mind automatically tries to register all the factors. Repeated successes refine the data until the baby can grab the object flawlessly.

This can work against someone in the case of pleasure that has a delayed negative side effect. If one’s “success register” says this was a good experience, then subconsciously the feedback servo-mechanism tries to take a snapshot of all the elements of success. It may not ever get to the point of noting the secondary negative effects and instinctively associating its cause. This is the formula for addiction.

If one has a traumatically bad experience with one sexual orientation, and experiments by deliberate “hold your nose” choice and gets a positive pleasure experience, then one is well on their way to addiction. This is especially true if the goal of the individual is to repudiate their past belief systems. My point is an experiment in the opposite orientation can lead one to a conditioned “new” natural orientation. In this case, it is a ‘new’ natural orientation that has been nurtured.

 

[wynnejj]

On a TV show last night he said he still said mass for people. The interviewer asked was the mass valid? To which he answered something along the lines of ‘once a priest always a priest’ - but it was not a direct answer. He did say he could not say mass at a marriage, I believe, if the bishop did not allow him - it was all very confusing, but it was blatantly obvious he is NOT supposed to be saying mass.

It’s one thing if a priest renounces his vows publicly and questions the authority of the church. There is room for charity because the problem is contained to the individual. It is another matter if he administers the sacraments in a public display of “sympathy for the devil” drawing people away from the church formally. He is bucking for formal excommunication.

 

[The_Rock]

Lifesitenews is yellow journalism in the same ballpark as the Inquirer or WND. It’s laughable.

Ok, if you want to dismiss the article out of hand because of the source, what is your reply to Fr Benedict Groeschel’s statement in the National Catholic Register that I posted?
Do you consider the National Catholic Register a reliable news source?
Would you consider Fr Benedict Groeschel qualified to comment on the question of reparative therapy? (master’s degree in counseling from Iona College in 1964 and a doctorate in psychology (Ed.D.) from Columbia University in 1971)
From what I have seen of Fr. on EWTN, he seems to be one of the most brilliant and holy men I have ever encountered.
From Fr. Groeschel:

Those who made the statement — really only a single APA committee — claim that there are at least 80 studies indicating that reparative treatment is not helpful to people of homosexual orientation.

They do admit, however, that most of these studies were actually made more than 30 years ago — and that the quality of the research involved was not very high.

Nevertheless, this APA committee has grabbed many headlines and, in the process, probably damaged many people who have struggled to overcome same-sex attachment through psychotherapy. At least some of them have likely given up on treatment that may have been greatly helping them.

Amazingly, the APA committee actually says in their statement that the reparative therapists may be “hurting people.”

On top of all that, in an almost bizarre ignoring of the purposes of his own discipline, one of the members of the task force that composed the report claimed that people who belong to religions that expect celibacy from the unmarried and monogamy from the married but find such expectations too difficult or onerous should simply change to a religion which requires less of them.

Is this in any way a part of the responsibilities of a psychological organization?

I am told by knowledgeable people whom I trust that the committee behind all this is primarily composed of people who also belong to a gay and lesbian division of the APA — a group that is surely not entirely impartial in matters such as these.

ncregister.com/site/article/appalled_by_the_psychological_association/